9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1024 - AT - Income TaxEligibilty for deduction under Section 10B - Held that - The benefit, if available to the assessee under the provisions of law, cannot be denied, simply on the basis of that assessee has taken contradictory stand before the AO and CIT(A) - The documents submitted by the assessee suggest that what was submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A), was the correct position - The facts can be verified from the documents filed by the assessee - The issue has been restored for fresh adjudication. Upward adjustment to the arms-length price - Held that - The assessee has renedered bank guarantee to its associated enterprise - The evaluation was done by the TPO on the basis of comparables and figures given by the assessee - The average rate of 2.08% was taken and the assessee could not point out any defect - Decided against assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - Following M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd. vs DCIT 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - The said rule 8D was not applicable in respect of assessment year 2007-08 - The CIT(A) calculated the disallowance on reasonable basus which was not disputed by the DR - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 10B in respect of interest income. 2. Upward adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to the arm's-length price. 3. Allowance of deduction for guarantee charges paid by the assessee. 4. Application of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act and Rule 8D for disallowance of interest expenditure. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 10B in Respect of Interest Income: The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 10B amounting to Rs. 7,83,31,945/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) excluded an interest income of Rs. 21,61,170/- from the eligibility for deduction under Section 10B, stating that it was not related to the core business activity. The CIT(A) upheld this exclusion based on the assessee's previous stance in the assessment year 2005-06, where the assessee did not press this ground. The assessee contended that Rs. 19,87,300/- of the interest was received for early payment of raw material purchases and should be eligible for deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify the facts and directed that if the interest income is related to business purchases, it should be considered eligible for deduction under Section 10B. 2. Upward Adjustment Made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to the Arm's-Length Price: The assessee provided a Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC) to Citibank Poland for its wholly-owned subsidiary, paying a guarantee fee of Rs. 15,49,880/-. The TPO added Rs. 75,944/- as interest on the guarantee fee and Rs. 35,98,244/- for the service of providing the guarantee, based on comparables, resulting in a total TP adjustment of Rs. 52,24,068/-. The CIT(A) upheld the TP adjustment, rejecting the assessee's contention that the transaction did not fall within the definition of "international transaction." The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee did not dispute the inclusion of interest or the comparables used for determining the arm's-length price. 3. Allowance of Deduction for Guarantee Charges Paid by the Assessee: The assessee paid Rs. 15,49,880/- as guarantee charges to Citibank Poland for the working capital facilities availed by its subsidiary and claimed it as an expenditure. The AO disallowed this expenditure, stating it was not incurred for the assessee's business. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not press this ground and dismissed it as not pressed. 4. Application of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act and Rule 8D for Disallowance of Interest Expenditure: The AO disallowed Rs. 32,68,473/- under Section 14A, applying Rule 8D, as the assessee earned exempted dividend income of Rs. 99,81,647/-. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 11,18,947/- based on a reasonable formula, stating that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2007-08. The Revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 21,49,426/-. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s calculation, noting that the DR could not point out any defect in the CIT(A)'s method, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Conclusion: The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal by the department was dismissed. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the facts regarding the interest income and upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the other issues.
|
