2015 (3) TMI 1373 - AT - Income Tax

Denial of deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT - As following the same parity of reasoning in assessee's own case 2015 (3) TMI 494 - ITAT PUNE we hold that in the absence of any arrangement having been arrived between the parties which resulted in higher profits, there is no merit in the order of the AO in re-working the profits by invoking the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) - Accordingly, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) in restricting the deduction u/s 10A of the Act and direct the AO to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Invoking the provisions of section 10A(7) read with section 80IA(10).
3. Usage of arithmetic mean from the transfer pricing study report for determining 'ordinary profits'.
4. Determination of whether the appellant earned 'more than ordinary profits'.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Deduction under Section 10A:
The primary issue in the appeal was the denial of deduction under section 10A amounting to Rs. 35,21,60,690. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 56.57 crores for profits derived from three STPI units and one EHTP unit. The Assessing Officer (AO) restricted this deduction by invoking section 10A(7) read with section 80IA(10), concluding that the profits were more than ordinary. The AO reduced the tax holiday claim by Rs. 37,82,94,462 based on a comparison of the assessee's margin (57.34%) with comparables (19%).

2. Invoking Provisions of Section 10A(7) Read with Section 80IA(10):
The Tribunal examined whether the provisions of section 10A(7) read with section 80IA(10) were correctly invoked. These provisions allow the AO to recompute profits if it appears that the business transactions between closely connected parties produce more than ordinary profits. The Tribunal noted that the AO must justify invoking these provisions with cogent material and evidence, demonstrating that the business arrangement produced more than ordinary profits.

3. Usage of Arithmetic Mean from Transfer Pricing Study Report:
The AO used the arithmetic mean of operating margins from comparable companies in the transfer pricing study to benchmark 'ordinary profits'. The Tribunal found that while the transfer pricing study could indicate higher profits, it alone could not justify invoking section 10A(7) read with section 80IA(10). The AO needed substantive evidence to show that the business arrangement was designed to produce more than ordinary profits.

4. Determination of Whether the Appellant Earned 'More than Ordinary Profits':
The Tribunal observed that the mere existence of high profits and a close connection between the assessee and associated enterprises was insufficient to invoke section 10A(7) read with section 80IA(10). The AO failed to provide evidence of any arrangement that resulted in higher profits. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent behind these provisions was to prevent abuse of tax concessions through profit manipulation, which was not demonstrated in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the AO did not prove any arrangement between the parties that resulted in higher profits. Consequently, the reworking of profits by invoking section 10A(7) read with section 80IA(10) was unjustified. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 35,21,60,690, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.