9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 225 - AT - Income TaxAO/DRP applied the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules - AO noticed that the assessee has received a dividend income - assessee submitted that as investments were made out of own funds, there were no interest costs involved - DRP directed the AO to recompute the disallowance by adopting average value of investments as also total assets - DRP has issued directions in tune with Godjrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd. (2010 -TMI - 78448 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) that a reasonable disallowance can be made even for the earlier assessment years Held that - The AO applied rule 8 D for assessment prior to assessment years 2008-09 on the ground that this is the basis on which reasonable disallowance can be made, but then this approach is clearly directly contrary to the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. case (supra) - no finding about the expenses incurred directly or indirectly for the purpose of earning the tax exempt income in favour of assessee. disallowing provision on special discount assessee submitted that as per correct accounting principles, liabilities attached to the sales of the current year, which can be determined with a fair degree of reasonableness, are required to be provided for in the current year itself - in the event of provision not being allowed as a deduction, the same should be allowed on payment basis Held that - Once the DRP holds that the provision has been made on a reasonable basis, a finding which cannot be challenged by the Assessing Officer, and is allowable in principle, its quantum can not be reduced solely on the ground that in the subsequent year the entire payment is not made in favour of assessee and direction to AO to delete the impugned disallowance. disallowing the provision for sales return AO was of the view that since sales returns have actually been made in the subsequent year, the same should have been accounted in the subsequent year itself - Held that - there is no point in first taking into account income on sales, which never reached finality, and then accounting for loss on sales return in the subsequent year , thus the approach of the assessee is in consonance with the well settled accountancy principles and the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the same in favour of assessee. the assessee was remunerated on cost plus arm s length mark up price of 15% by the AEs of Rs. 83,75,217 on a cost of Rs. 5,58,34,783. - The assessee adopted certain comparables to demonstrate that mean margin is 13.86% and the margin of 15% adopted by the assessee is an ALP margin DRP rejecting the mark up of 15% as not an arm s length price, an ALP adjustment is made of 54,27,141 Assesee contented that Engineers India Ltd, a PSU dealing in engineering consultancy, is not at all engaged in low risk contract research work and it cannot be a valid comparable for this purpose and once EIL is excluded from the list of comparables, the arithmetic of mean of the remaining comparables will be within 5% range of the ALP margin Held that - the impugned ALP adjustment is deleted for the reason that EIL is not a valid comparable for contract research work and that once EIL is excluded, the mark up by the assessee is within 5% range of comparables finalized by the DRP in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Computation of total income. 2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Disallowance of provision for special discount. 4. Disallowance of provision for sales return. 5. Credit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). 6. Transfer Pricing adjustments. Detailed Analysis: 1. Computation of Total Income: The assessee challenged the correctness of the order computing the total income at Rs. 41,25,47,020 against the returned income of Rs. 37,80,62,350. This ground was deemed unnecessary for adjudication as it was a summation of specific grievances addressed in subsequent grounds. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act: The assessee contested the application of Rule 8D for disallowance under section 14A. The Assessing Officer (AO) applied Rule 8D, despite the Bombay High Court ruling in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, which stated that Rule 8D is inapplicable for assessment years prior to 2008-09. The Tribunal found that the AO's approach was unreasonable and contrary to legal position. The AO failed to examine the facts and did not find any direct or indirect expenses incurred for earning tax-exempt income. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 1,66,000 offered by the assessee as fair and reasonable, allowing the assessee's grievance. 3. Disallowance of Provision for Special Discount: The AO disallowed part of the provision for special discount amounting to Rs. 79,91,176. The DRP upheld the provision as reasonable and in accordance with accounting standards. The Tribunal agreed with the DRP, stating that once a provision is found reasonable, its deductibility should not be affected by subsequent year events. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance, allowing the assessee's grievance. 4. Disallowance of Provision for Sales Return: The AO disallowed the provision for sales return amounting to Rs. 20,053,988, arguing that it should be accounted for in the subsequent year. The Tribunal noted that under Section 145 and mandatory accounting standards, anticipated losses should be provided for. The Tribunal found the assessee's approach consistent with accounting principles and directed the AO to delete the disallowance, allowing the assessee's grievance. 5. Credit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): The assessee claimed that the AO erred in not giving credit for MAT paid amounting to Rs. 7,963,026. This issue was not elaborated further in the judgment. 6. Transfer Pricing Adjustments: The assessee contested the AO's computation of the arm's length price (ALP) and the adjustments made. The AO used comparables that included Engineers India Ltd (EIL), which the assessee argued was not a valid comparable for contract research work. The Tribunal agreed, citing a coordinate bench's decision in Tevapharm India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, which excluded EIL as a valid comparable. The Tribunal found that excluding EIL, the assessee's mark-up was within the 5% range of the arithmetic mean of the comparables. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the ALP adjustment, allowing the assessee's grievance. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee on all contested grounds, with specific directions to the AO to delete the disallowances and adjustments made.
|
