9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 174 - AT - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustment - DRP determining Arm s Length Price of Sales Commission transaction of the appellant at Rs. Nil - Held that - We are of the opinion that in the present case, the TPO has gone beyond his jurisdiction in questioning necessity to pay sales commission and in determining the value of commission paid as NIL. The assessee has placed on record the agreement according to which the commission is paid. The financial records of the assessee company to show that there has been increase in the export sales since the time the assessee has engaged the services of AE. The Revenue has not disputed the financial results and the figure of export sales furnished by the assessee. As the assessee has been able to substantiate its claim from the agreement in accordance with which the commission was paid and comparative study of increase in export sales over the years. Thus, we are of the view that the authorities below were not justified in denying the payment of sales commission by the assessee to AE. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of late payment of the ESIC - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has deposited employees share of contribution towards ESIC before the due date of filing return under the Act. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) by placing reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported as (2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT) has held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of contribution of employees welfare funds where the amount has been deposited before the due date of filing of return under the provisions of Income Tax Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) of Sales Commission transaction. 2. Disallowance of late payment of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) contribution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) of Sales Commission transaction: The assessee, a company involved in manufacturing internal combustion engine valves, challenged the assessment order determining the ALP of the sales commission transaction at Rs. Nil instead of Rs. 2,118,199/-. The assessee had paid a commission of Rs. 21,18,200/- to its Associated Enterprise (AE) for procuring export orders from Fiat and General Motors. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) concluded that the assessee failed to justify the need for the services and did not demonstrate how the services were rendered by the AE. Consequently, the TPO proposed the value of the transaction as NIL. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's findings, leading to the addition in the assessment order. The assessee argued that the commission payments were consistent with previous and subsequent years where no disallowance was made. The assessee provided details of export sales and commission payments, emphasizing that the Department should not interfere with business decisions regarding commission payments. The assessee cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd., which held that the TPO's role is limited to determining the ALP and not questioning the necessity of services. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had shown a steady increase in export sales, supported by financial records and agreements with the AE. The Tribunal held that the TPO exceeded his jurisdiction by questioning the necessity of the commission payment and determining the ALP as NIL. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the authorities were not justified in denying the payment of sales commission. 2. Disallowance of late payment of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) contribution: The second issue involved the disallowance of Rs. 111,519/- for the late payment of the employees' share of ESIC contributions. The DRP upheld the disallowance, stating the amount was not deposited within the due date specified under the relevant statute. The assessee contended that the amount was deposited before the due date of filing the return under the Income Tax Act, which should make it allowable. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., which relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. The ruling established that contributions to employees' welfare funds deposited before the due date of filing the return are deductible. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the ESIC contribution, stating that the assessee was entitled to the deduction. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed on both grounds. The Tribunal found that the TPO had overstepped his jurisdiction in determining the ALP of the sales commission transaction as NIL and upheld that the ESIC contribution paid before the due date of filing the return was deductible. The judgment emphasized the limited role of the TPO in transfer pricing matters and reinforced the principle that business decisions regarding expenses should not be questioned by tax authorities.
|
