9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1375 - AT - Income TaxTPA - comparability - Held that - Assessee was characterized as a routine service provider exposed to less than normal risk associated with its business. Based on this assessee was selected as a tested party and transaction net marginal method was considered as the most appropriate method thus companies functianlly dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deleted and we direct exclusion of the above two comparables namely TSR Darashaw Ltd. and HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - It is undisputed fact that during the year assessee has not received any dividend and therefore no disallowance can be made in the hands of the assessee u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act in absence of any exempt income. See Cheminvest Vs. CIT 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT . Thus disallowance deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 3. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings and Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment: The assessee, a company engaged in consulting and support services, filed an appeal against the assessment order which included a transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee had benchmarked its international transactions using the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) with a profit level indicator (PLI) of Operating Profit to Total Cost (OP/TC). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the assessee's comparables and selected different ones, leading to an adjustment of ?57,41,983. - Ground 3.2: The assessee contested the inclusion of two comparables by the TPO, namely TSR Darashaw Ltd. and HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd., arguing they were functionally dissimilar. - TSR Darashaw Ltd.: The Tribunal found this company to be engaged in payroll processing and other BPO services, which are not comparable to the limited risk marketing support services provided by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of TSR Darashaw Ltd. based on functional dissimilarity, referencing the decision in Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT. - HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd.: Similarly, this company was found to be engaged in payroll processing and compensation structuring, which are not comparable to the assessee's services. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd., also referencing the decision in Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act: The assessee had made investments in its subsidiary but did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year. The Assessing Officer (AO) applied Rule 8D and disallowed ?63,16,500, which was upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). - The Tribunal noted that no exempt income was earned during the year and referenced the Delhi High Court decision in Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT, which held that Section 14A would not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of ?63,16,500. 3. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings and Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D: - Grounds 7 and 8: The assessee contested the initiation of penalty proceedings and the charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234D. The Tribunal deemed the ground against the initiation of penalty proceedings as premature and the ground against charging of interest as consequential, thus dismissing both grounds. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of TSR Darashaw Ltd. and HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd. from the list of comparables for transfer pricing purposes and deleted the disallowance under Section 14A due to the absence of exempt income. The grounds related to penalty proceedings and interest were dismissed.
|
