9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1193 - AT - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustment - Held that - The appellant by an Internal CUP (Travelex / HSBC) has demonstrated that counting fees for export of currency entails more expense than corresponding service fees or / incentive receipts - It has passed the test of comparability - Counting fees for currency exported is charged by third parties (HSBC / Travelex) and so if the appellant AE did not charge it last year or this year, does not in any way negate the crucial fact that a third independent part would have charged it any case - The fundamentals underlying transfer pricing involves setting of prices within an MNE in line with what third parties would have negotiated in similar circumstances - In the present case had the AE insisted on charging counting fees for currency exported then it would have been more than the corresponding incentives / service for income and the appellant would have been worse off The addition has rightly been deleted by CIT(A) Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A Held that - CIT (A) has rightly held that in view of the judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, the provisions of Rule-8D cannot be applied to the assessee for the assessment year under consideration 2005-2007 - 2% of the exempt income was considered as reasonable disallowance u/s 14A - This figure is approximately works out to 5% of the investments as on 31.3.2005 Decided against Revenue. Depreciation on leasehold premises - Held that - The asset was never put to use till date - It is not legally correct that the leased premise was capitalized and added to the block of assets - Such ineligible asset, which hass not fulfilled the conditions of section 32 of the Act should not have been included in the block of assets - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. Disallowance under Section 14A 3. Incorrect Application of Section 92C(3) 4. Disallowance of Payment to Tamara Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 5. Disallowance of Depreciation on Leasehold Premises Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment: The Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 2465/M/2011) raised the issue of a Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment amounting to Rs. 7,46,243/-. The assessee did not charge fees from its Associated Enterprises (AEs) but did from other related parties. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made an addition based on the Arm's Length Price (ALP) provisions. The CIT (A) deleted the adjustment, reasoning that the counting fees paid to AEs would lead to a loss if both service fees and counting fees were considered. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the TPO failed to account for the counting fees and the overall financial impact on the assessee. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A: The Revenue contested the CIT (A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to 2% of the exempt income, amounting to Rs. 1,12,843/-, against the AO's disallowance of Rs. 9,09,636/-. The CIT (A) relied on the judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, which held that Rule-8D cannot be applied for the assessment year 2005-2006. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A), noting that a 2% disallowance was reasonable and consistent with precedent. 3. Incorrect Application of Section 92C(3): In the assessee's appeal (ITA No. 9156/M/2010), the issue of incorrect application of Section 92C(3) was raised but deemed general and not requiring specific adjudication. The Tribunal dismissed this ground. 4. Disallowance of Payment to Tamara Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd.: The assessee's appeal included a ground regarding the disallowance of Rs. 10 lakhs paid to Tamara Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. The authorities below disallowed the payment for lack of evidence. The assessee provided an invoice during the Tribunal proceedings, which was not previously submitted. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication and to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence. 5. Disallowance of Depreciation on Leasehold Premises: The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 2,20,817/- for depreciation on leasehold premises. The lower authorities disallowed the depreciation as the asset was not put to use. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that an asset not used does not qualify for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the asset should not have been included in the block of assets as it was never put to use. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT (A)'s decisions on both the TP adjustment and the Section 14A disallowance. In the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal granted relief on the TP adjustment and the Section 14A disallowance, remanded the issue of payment to Tamara Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. for fresh adjudication, and upheld the disallowance of depreciation on the leasehold premises.
|
