9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1234 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - classification of the goods as slow moving or as old stock - ALP of exports of goods - TPO clearly held that the assessee company could not produce anything on record which could substantiate that the goods so exported were part of the slow moving old goods - Selection of MAM - as per CIT-A a fit case to use CUP as a most appropriate method HELD THAT - The contention of the DR that the assessee instead of selling old stock through AE has directly sold the same to the third party is not correct. The CIT(A) gave finding after considering all the aspects to that effect. It can be found that the said stock was of old stock and the sale was also through the AE as well. The goods sold are exactly the same as the goods were dispatched from the warehouse of the assessee to the ultimate buyer who is an independent entity. The time gap between the sale of the assessee and the sale of the AE are negligible because it has happened within the same month. The gross profit earned by the assessee is in India. TPO had not disputed the classification of the goods as slow moving or as old stock. Therefore the CIT(A) has rightly held in favour of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made on account of adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for the sale of goods to an associated enterprise (AE). 3. Classification and valuation of inventory as old and slow-moving stock. 4. Application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition by CIT(A): The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,87,51,769/- by the CIT(A), arguing that the CIT(A) failed to substantiate that the goods exported were part of slow-moving old stock. The TPO had held that the assessee company could not produce evidence to substantiate the claim that the goods exported were old and slow-moving. The CIT(A) was also criticized for not providing a cogent explanation for adopting an 8.25% rate while rejecting the TPO's Gross Profit (GP) rate of 22.64% for determining the ALP. 2. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP): The assessee company, engaged in the distribution and marketing of sportswear under the 'Adidas' brand, had its transactions scrutinized by the TPO. The TPO determined the ALP of the sale of goods to an AE at Rs. 5,73,67,313/- against the book value of Rs. 2,86,15,544/-, leading to an adjustment of Rs. 2,87,51,769/-. The TPO's determination was based on the GP margin of 22.64% observed in the assessee's Tax Audit Report. 3. Classification and Valuation of Inventory: The TPO argued that there was no evidence to show that the goods sold to the AE were old and slow-moving. The assessee contended that its fashion trend changes every six months, leading to the classification of unsold stock as old and slow-moving, which is then sold at discounted prices or consigned to the warehouse. The TPO, however, noted that the goods exported to the AE were not the same as those sold to a third party (SIMO), and the sale of old stock to the AE was not economically prudent given the high warehousing costs in Singapore. 4. Application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method: The TPO applied the CUP method to determine the ALP, asserting that the value of stock sold should be Rs. 5,73,67,313/-. The assessee argued that the inventory was valued at net realizable value as per AS-2 of the Accounting Standards, which considers the estimated selling price less the cost of completion and necessary selling costs. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's method, noting that the GP margin of 22.64% included transactions with related parties and was not appropriate for determining the ALP for old stock. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the stock sold was old and slow-moving and that the sale was through the AE. The Tribunal found that the TPO's expectation of a 22.64% GP margin on old stock was unreasonable, given the nature of the goods and the market conditions. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) correctly applied the CUP method, considering the sale invoices and the negligible time gap between the sales to the AE and the third party. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
