9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 45 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - whether deduction claimed under section 10A could be curtailed? - Held that - The onus is upon the department to prove that there existed an arrangement between the assessee and its Associated Enterprises to earn more than ordinary profits and in the absence of the said onus having been discharged by the department and following the parity of reasoning as in Honeywell Turbo Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2017 (3) TMI 1533 - ITAT PUNE and Tata Johnson Controls Automotive Limited Vs. DCIT 2016 (4) TMI 963 - ITAT PUNE , we find no merit in the order of the Commissioner passed under section 263 of the Act in holding that the Assessing Officer while granting deduction under section 10A of the Act has passed the said order without any application of mind. Where the Assessing Officer in his order considered the claim of assessee under section 10A of the Act and allowed the same, merely because the Commissioner is not agreeable to the view adopted by the Assessing Officer, the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by the Commissioner cannot be upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Invocation of Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(10) of the Income-tax Act. 3. Comparison of operating profit margins between different service segments. 4. Adherence to Transfer Pricing provisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The main issue in the appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The CIT considered the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 is based on the satisfaction that the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The fundamental principles for invoking Section 263 include incorrect assumptions of facts or law, orders passed without application of mind, or when the AO's view is unsustainable under law. 2. Invocation of Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(10) of the Income-tax Act: The CIT invoked Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(10) on the grounds that the assessee earned more than ordinary profits from its Engineering Design and Development Services. The CIT believed that the AO failed to apply these provisions, leading to an erroneous and prejudicial order. The CIT directed the AO to revise the assessment by applying these provisions, arguing that the high-profit margins indicated an arrangement to yield more than ordinary profits, which warranted restricting the deduction under Section 10A. 3. Comparison of operating profit margins between different service segments: The CIT compared the operating profit margins of the Engineering Design and Development Services (270% on total cost) with the Business Support Services (7.39% on total cost). The CIT argued that the AO should have applied the provisions of Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(10) due to the significant difference in profit margins. The assessee contended that the two services were not comparable due to their distinct nature and that the high-profit margins in the Engineering Design Services were justified by the complexity and controlled costs of the services provided. 4. Adherence to Transfer Pricing provisions: The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had accepted the margins shown by the assessee for the Engineering Design and Development Services under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, without making any adjustments. The CIT noted that the AO did not apply his mind to the provisions of Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(10), despite the TPO's findings. The assessee argued that the TPO's acceptance of the margins indicated that the transactions were at arm's length, and there was no basis for the CIT's invocation of Section 263. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The AO had verified the claim of deduction under Section 10A, and the TPO had accepted the margins shown by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT could not invoke Section 263 merely because he had a different opinion. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT's directions for a fresh search and comparison of profit margins were not warranted. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and allowed the assessee's appeal, confirming the deduction under Section 10A in its entirety.
|
