2019 (7) TMI 1826 - AT - Income Tax

TP adjustments qua the payment of management services fee - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Tribunal relied heavily on the earlier orders of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. Considering the commonness of the issue, we find it relevant to follow the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2012-13 2018 (12) TMI 691 - ITAT PUNE and confirm the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the relevant grounds on this issue raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Allowability of the warranty provision - HELD THAT -The issue raised in the present appeal is similar where the assessee is following systematic manner of creating provision for warranty and there is no change in factual aspects, hence, we find no merit in the orders of authorities below in not allowing the claim of assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition as relying the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2012-13 2018 (12) TMI 691 - ITAT PUNE

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment for management services fees.
2. Disallowance of warranty provision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustment for Management Services Fees:

The primary issue concerns the TP adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) regarding the payment of management services fees amounting to ?20,38,53,136/-. The Revenue questioned the deletion of this adjustment by the CIT(A), arguing that the CIT(A) relied on previous decisions which were not directly applicable to the TP provisions under section 92CA(3).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a Corporate Services Agreement with a related party, under which management services were provided in various business areas. The TPO had disallowed these fees, considering them as shareholder services, and questioned the necessity and evidence of the services rendered.

However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal in previous years (AY 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13) had allowed the deduction of these fees, recognizing the commercial expediency and the legitimate business needs for such services. The Tribunal reiterated that the AO cannot override the business decisions of the assessee regarding the necessity of these expenses, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the management services fees were at arm’s length and allowable as business expenditure, consistent with the Tribunal's earlier rulings.

2. Disallowance of Warranty Provision:

The second issue involved the disallowance of ?30,00,000/- out of the total warranty provision of ?1.51 crores by the AO. The AO had allowed only ?1.21 crores, disallowing the rest based on the utilization of the provisions.

The assessee argued that the warranty provision was created based on past experience and statistical data, and was a legitimate business expense necessary for ensuring product performance as per customer specifications. This practice had been consistently followed and allowed in previous years.

The Tribunal referred to its decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, where the provision for warranty was allowed in full, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal found no change in the factual aspects and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the entire warranty provision.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the TP adjustment for management services fees and to allow the full provision for warranty. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with its earlier rulings in the assessee's own cases for previous assessment years.