2015 (9) TMI 138 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of advertisement 104.17 crores as compared to the fees received by the assessee at 20.97 crores. It has a strong R&D background alongwith product development expertise which the assessee did not have. The said company also acquired US based Boston Communications Group Inc. in August 2007 which also resulted in high profit margin of the said company. Therefore CIT(A) rightly held that Mega Soft Ltd. to be excluded from the set of comparables. CIT(A) rightly directed the AO to exclude the Mega Soft Ltd. and include the Orient Information Technology Ltd. in the comparables and worked out the Arm s lengh price and if it falls within the range of 5% of the range then no addition is to be made. We do not see any infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of Advertisement and publicity expenses.
2. Deletion of addition on account of Leasehold improvements expenses.
3. Deletion of addition on account of Direct selling agent commission expenses.
4. Deletion of addition on account of Loss on sale of repossessed assets.
5. Deletion of addition on account of Depreciation on computer peripherals.
6. Deletion of addition on account of NCD and Commercial paper issue expense.
7. Deletion of addition on account of Loan acquisition costs.
8. Deletion of addition on account of adjustment of Arm's length price of the international transaction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Advertisement and Publicity Expenses:
The department's grievance was the deletion of an addition of Rs. 24,40,36,690/- made by the AO. The CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the decision of his predecessor for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal found no merit in the departmental appeal, citing that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

2. Leasehold Improvements Expenses:
The department contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 21,16,50,310/- made by the AO. The CIT(A) followed the ITAT's order for the preceding year, which had been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal found no merit in the departmental appeal, emphasizing that the CIT(A) had rightly followed the earlier order of the Tribunal.

3. Direct Selling Agent Commission Expenses:
The department appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,00,55,42,364/-. The CIT(A) followed the ITAT's order for the preceding year. The Tribunal found no merit in the departmental appeal, noting that the issue had been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years.

4. Loss on Sale of Repossessed Assets:
The department's grievance was the deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,28,33,372/-. The CIT(A) followed the ITAT's order for the preceding year, which had been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal found no merit in the departmental appeal, reiterating that the CIT(A) had rightly followed the earlier order of the Tribunal.

5. Depreciation on Computer Peripherals:
The department contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 3,61,02,215/-. The CIT(A) followed the ITAT's order for the preceding year. The Tribunal found no merit in the departmental appeal, emphasizing that the CIT(A) had rightly followed the earlier order of the Tribunal.

6. NCD and Commercial Paper Issue Expense:
The department appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,74,05,698/-. The CIT(A) followed the ITAT's order for the preceding year. The Tribunal found no merit in the departmental appeal, noting that the issue had been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years.

7. Loan Acquisition Costs:
The department's grievance was the deletion of an addition of Rs. 51,34,55,174/-. The CIT(A) followed the ITAT's order for the preceding year, which had been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal found no merit in the departmental appeal, reiterating that the CIT(A) had rightly followed the earlier order of the Tribunal.

8. Adjustment of Arm's Length Price of the International Transaction:
The department contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,13,56,639/-. The CIT(A) found that the TPO had used different filters and comparables, leading to the adjustment. The CIT(A) directed the TPO/AO to exclude Mega Soft Ltd. from the set of comparables and include Orient Information Technology Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the TPO had not provided specific reasons for excluding Orient Information Technology Ltd. and that Mega Soft Ltd. was functionally different from the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the department, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the earlier orders of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, and found no merit in the departmental appeals.