2018 (4) TMI 36 - AT - Income Tax

TPA - machineries purchased along with accessories from its AE - determine the fair market value of the said machine - Held that - These are some of the illustrative factors which by and large need to be seen while valuing the old machines, which in our opinion TPO has failed to take note of. He has also not carried out any independent exercise for the value of the machinery by any approved valuer/Chartered Engineer so as to controvert the fair market value determined by the assessee s Chartered Engineer. Moreover, here in this case, it is an admitted fact that in the A.Y.2008-09, the TPO has accepted the same value as per the valuation report given by the Chartered Engineer in respect to the purchase of similar old machine along with its accessories from its AEs. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order by the ld. CIT (A) in holding that the adjustment made by the TPO is without any basis and has rightly been deleted by him. Accordingly, ground no.1 is dismissed. Disallowance on account of u/s.14A read with Rule 8D - Held that - As no interest bearing funds have been diverted for the purpose of investment, therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance of interest Disallowance of claim of depreciation @ 60% on UPS - Held that - CIT(A) has deleted the addition, following the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT , wherein computer accessories/peripherals like printers, scanners, server, UPS, etc., have been held to be integral part of computer system, and therefore, entitled to depreciation @60%. - Appeal of revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Deletion of addition made by TPO.
2. Restriction of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
3. Deletion of disallowance of depreciation on UPS.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition Made by TPO:

The primary issue was whether the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of ?5,09,12,109/- made by the TPO without appreciating the findings. The assessee had international transactions with its AE for purchasing old/used machinery. The assessee used the CUP method for benchmarking and provided a Chartered Engineer's certificate to ascertain the fair market value (FMV). The TPO did not accept this FMV, arguing it did not fulfill transfer pricing principles. Instead, the TPO used a unique formula to determine the ALP, leading to an addition of ?5,09,12,109/-. The CIT (A) noted that the TPO's method was not recognized by law and had inconsistencies, especially since similar transactions in subsequent years were accepted without adjustments. The CIT (A) deleted the adjustment, which was upheld by the Tribunal, noting that the TPO failed to consider various factors affecting the value of used machinery and did not conduct an independent valuation.

2. Restriction of Disallowance Under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:

The second issue concerned the disallowance of ?1,21,854/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee earned dividend income claimed as exempt and argued that no specific expenditure was attributable to earning this income. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 14A automatically, disallowing ?8,87,378/- after applying Rule 8D. The CIT (A) found that no interest-bearing funds were used for investments and deleted the interest disallowance of ?7,65,524/-, but upheld the indirect expenditure disallowance of ?1,21,854/-. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the assessee had used its own equity funds for investments, making the interest disallowance unjustified.

3. Deletion of Disallowance of Depreciation on UPS:

The third issue was the disallowance of depreciation @ 60% on UPS, with the Assessing Officer allowing only 15%. The CIT (A) deleted this disallowance, following the Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of CIT vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd., which held that computer accessories/peripherals like UPS are integral parts of the computer system and entitled to 60% depreciation. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT (A)'s order, affirming that the higher depreciation rate was justified.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds, affirming the CIT (A)'s decisions to delete the TPO's addition, restrict the disallowance under Section 14A, and allow higher depreciation on UPS.