2021 (9) TMI 1419 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - Disallowance of availing of intra-group services, i.e. Administrative and Managerial Services by the Appellant from its Associated Enterprises (AE) - application of benefit test - AO made addition of management support services u/s. 37(1) and /or/u/s. 40A(2)(b) - HELD THAT - As decided in assessee's own case 2020 (2) TMI 1608 - ITAT MUMBAI ITAT has inter alia held that TPO has erred in applying the benefit test. That the AO has contradicted himself that he is not applying the benefit test. We find that the proposition of ITAT in the above order are applicable to the facts in the present case to the extent ITAT has inter alia set aside the order, DRP observation that the agreement should have been entered into by the parties in a particular manner by incorporating several other clauses. This observation is duly applicable to this year also. However, since the AO has noted that assessee has not supplied the relevant documentary evidence and Ld. Counsel of the assessee has agreed that documents may be examined by the AO, we remit the issue to the file of AO only to examine the documents in this regard. Thereafter, AO shall decide as per law keeping in mind ITAT order in assessee s own case as above and our observations hereinabove.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of intra-group services (Administrative and Managerial Services) availed by the Assessee from its Associated Enterprises (AE) amounting to Rs. 78,99,011/-.
2. Adequacy of evidence provided by the Assessee to demonstrate that the services were actually rendered by the AE and the benefit derived from these services.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Intra-Group Services:
The Assessee company, engaged in trading testers and meters, claimed an expense of Rs. 78,99,011/- for Management Support fees paid to its holding company, M/s Megger Group Ltd. (MGL). The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these expenses under Section 37(1) and/or Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, citing a lack of specific details justifying the payments. The AO noted that the Assessee failed to provide evidence on how the quantum of services was determined and whether the payments were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The AO also referred to a previous Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) observation from AY 2012-13, which found that the Assessee did not produce primary evidence of services rendered by the AE.

2. Adequacy of Evidence:
The AO observed that the Assessee did not submit necessary supporting evidence during the assessment proceedings, such as detailed invoices or documentation showing the actual services rendered by the AE. The TPO's findings from AY 2012-13 highlighted similar issues, including the absence of primary evidence, lack of quantification of services, and failure to demonstrate the utility of services. The AO concluded that without clear evidence, it was not possible to determine if the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, leading to the disallowance of Rs. 78,99,011/-.

Appellate Proceedings:
Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's order, referencing the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) decision from AY 2012-13, which had ruled against the Assessee on similar grounds. The CIT(A) found no reason to deviate from the DRP's findings since the facts and circumstances were identical.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that in the Assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, the Tribunal had decided in favor of the Assessee. The ITAT observed that the TPO had erred in applying the benefit test and not using any prescribed method for benchmarking the arm's length price of the intra-group services. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had contradicted himself by stating that the issue was not about the benefit under Section 37(1) but about documentation.

Remand to AO:
The ITAT acknowledged that while the Assessee had not provided relevant documentary evidence, the Assessee's counsel agreed to submit the necessary documents for examination. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to examine the documents and decide the matter as per law, considering the ITAT's previous order and observations.

Conclusion:
The appeal by the Assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, with the direction to the AO to re-examine the documentary evidence and make a fresh determination based on the ITAT's guidelines and legal precedents.