9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1171 - AT - Income TaxTPA - companies functinal comparable - Held that - Assessee is engaged in the business of providing services in supporting the development of client server applications, to assist customers in the successful development of Microsoft technology, both directly and through service providers and to provide training through authorized training centres to assist customers in the operation of Microsoft licensed software, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list. Disallowance of 50% car running expenses used by directors - Held that - Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company v. CIT 2001 (7) TMI 70 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that once the directors of the Assessee company are entitled to use the vehicles of the company for their personal use as per the terms and conditions of their appointment, it cannot be said that the same was a personal expenditure.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments 2. Corporate Tax Disallowances Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments: The assessee challenged the correctness of the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the directions of the DRP. The primary contention was that the TPO failed to establish that the conditions specified in clause (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) were satisfied before disregarding the arm's length price determined by the assessee. The DRP and TPO/AO made an upward adjustment of Rs. 64,21,85,866 in respect of international transactions related to marketing support services and regional guest employee services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The assessee argued that the DRP and TPO/AO erred in treating the market support services segment and regional guest employee services segment as similar without proper FAR (Functional Asset and Risk) analysis. The economic analysis undertaken by the assessee was rejected without proper justification, and the TPO/AO arbitrarily accepted and rejected certain companies, leading to skewed results. The use of single-year data by the TPO/AO was also contested, as the assessee had used multiple-year data for computing the arm's length price. Additionally, the TPO/AO did not make suitable adjustments for differences in working capital and risk profiles, and incorrectly computed the operating margins of the comparables. The assessee focused on the exclusion of three specific comparables: TCE Consulting Engineers Ltd., Vimta Labs Ltd., and Water and Power Consultancy Services India Ltd. The ITAT, in the assessee's own case for earlier years, had directed the exclusion of these comparables due to functional dissimilarity. The Revenue had not challenged this exclusion in the High Court, thereby precluding them from disputing it before the ITAT. The ITAT reiterated that these companies were functionally different and directed their exclusion from the list of comparables. 2. Corporate Tax Disallowances: The assessee challenged the disallowance of 50% of running and maintenance expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,51,00,500 with respect to vehicles used for business purposes. The DRP upheld the AO's disallowance, noting that similar disallowances had been made in past assessment years, and the matter was pending before the ITAT. The ITAT referred to its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, where it had allowed the assessee's claim. The ITAT noted that the use of vehicles by employees could not be characterized as non-business use, and therefore, no disallowance on account of running and maintenance expenses was warranted. The Hon'ble High Court had also upheld this view, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and confirming that the expenses were business expenditures. Conclusion: The ITAT directed the exclusion of the three contested comparables for transfer pricing adjustments and allowed the assessee's claim regarding the disallowance of vehicle running and maintenance expenses. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with most issues not being agitated in the present appeal.
|
