9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 305 - AT - Income TaxAdjustment u/s 92CA(3) - providing catering services to different airlines - joint venture between IHCL at 51% stake and SATS at 49% stake Taj Sats supplied processed food to AE s using CUP method - TPO made the adjustment to the arm s length price charged by Taj Sats to its AE after comparing the average of prices per item of meal charged to other Airlines - Held that - the food supplied is a basket containing individual items rather than supply of the items individually. Therefore the entire transaction has to be viewed as a single transaction - A.O. was not justified in making the adjustment of ₹ 460391/-u/s 92CA(3) of the Act in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 14A - assessee company has earned dividend income from Tata Mutual Funds claimed as exempt u/s 10(35) - A.O disallowed 10% of CFO s remuneration amounting u/s 14A of the I.T. Act relying on fact that the CFO definitely spent some time for investment decision Held that - since the assessee has not allocated any expenditure for earning tax free dividend income and since the disallowance made by the A.O. on adhoc basis appears to be on higher side, a reasonable disallowance of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Dis-allowance of claim of depreciation on various intangible assets grouped under the head Goodwill that the business of IHCL was acquired by the assessee as a going concern The consideration is not paid independently for each asset or liability Held that - when depreciation has neither been claimed nor allowed on intangible assets in the preceding years the assessee, in our opinion, cannot be allowed to claim depreciation on intangible assets in the impugned assessment year against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Depreciation claim on goodwill and other intangible assets. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Adjustment under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act: The assessee challenged the adjustment of Rs. 460,391 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under Section 92CA(3) of the Act. The assessee, engaged in catering services, supplied processed food to Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic, benchmarking the transaction using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) adjusted the arm's length price based on the average prices charged to other airlines. The A.O. added Rs. 460,391 to the assessee's income, which was confirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee argued that the transaction should be viewed as a single bundled transaction, citing Rule 10(l)(d) of the I.T. Rules and OECD guidelines. The assessee presented a comparison table showing that the rates charged to Singapore Airlines were the highest, indicating arm's length pricing. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, holding that the transactions were at arm's length price and directed the A.O. to delete the adjustment, allowing the ground raised by the assessee. 2. Addition under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act: The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 205,950 made by the A.O. under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 0.49 crores from Tata Mutual Funds, claimed as exempt under Section 10(35). The A.O. disallowed 10% of the CFO's remuneration, amounting to Rs. 205,950, based on DRP's directions. The assessee argued that the investments were made from own funds, and no specific expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt income. The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and concluded that the disallowance made by the A.O. on an ad hoc basis was on the higher side. It directed a reasonable disallowance of Rs. 150,000, partly allowing the ground raised by the assessee. 3. Depreciation Claim on Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets: The assessee challenged the A.O.'s disallowance of Rs. 7,77,77,860 claimed as depreciation on various intangible assets grouped under 'Goodwill.' The assessee argued that the business of Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) was acquired as a going concern, including various business/commercial rights. The A.O. rejected the claim, noting that the tax auditors did not consider depreciation on goodwill as allowable. The A.O. also highlighted that the issue was previously disallowed in Assessment Year 2003-04, upheld by the CIT(A), and the matter was pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decision, held that no depreciation is allowable on goodwill. It also rejected the assessee's bifurcation of goodwill into intangible assets as an afterthought, prepared eight years after the business transfer agreement. The Tribunal upheld the A.O.'s order, disallowing depreciation on goodwill and other intangible assets, dismissing the grounds on this issue. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the deletion of the adjustment under Section 92CA(3) and a reduced disallowance under Section 14A. However, the claim for depreciation on goodwill and other intangible assets was dismissed. Grounds 4 to 6 were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed as academic in nature.
|
