9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 799 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - International transaction u/s 92B - Letter of Comfort by the Appellant to the Banks - CIT(A) concluded that there is a fundamental between guarantee and Letter of Comfort and Guarantee is a legal enforceable; however Letter of Comfort is not - HELD THAT - Hon ble Karnataka High Court in United Braveries (Holding) Ltd. vs. Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation ( 2011 (8) TMI 1331 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) held that Letter of Comfort merely indicates the appellant s assurance that respondent would comply the term of financial transaction without guaranteeing performance in the event of default. The co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in India Hotels Co. Ltd. 2019 (9) TMI 1340 - ITAT MUMBAI on similar ground of appeal by following the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that Letter of Comfort does not constitute international transaction. So far as contention of ld. DR for the revenue that after amendment in Explanation to section 92B is concerned we have noted that co-ordinate bench in SIRO Clinpharm P. Ltd ( 2016 (5) TMI 633 - ITAT MUMBAI) held that amendment in Explanation to section 92B by Finance Act effective from 01.04.2002 is to be treated as effective at the best from A.Y. 2013-14. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A). Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT - In assessee s own case on identical issues have been considered by Tribunal from A.Y. 2000-01 to 2002-03 and 2004-05 wherein the Assessing Officer is directed to compute the disallowance under section 14A at 5% of the exempt income. No material change in the fact is brought to our notice for the year under consideration. Therefore following the order of Tribunal for A.Y. 2000-01 to 2002-03 which was followed in A.Y. 2004-05 hence we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance under section 14A at 5% of exempt income. In the result this ground of appeal is partly allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of claims settled as bad debts or business loss. 2. Disallowance of payments made to clubs. 3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Transfer Pricing Adjustment with respect to the issuance of "Letters of Comfort." 5. Jurisdictional issues concerning the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Claims Settled as Bad Debts or Business Loss: The Tribunal addressed the disallowance of ?60,45,662 claimed by the assessee as bad debts or business loss. The assessee argued that the issue was covered by a previous Tribunal decision in their favor for the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. The Tribunal, after reviewing the past decisions for AY 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2003-04, found consistency in allowing such claims and decided to follow the precedent, thereby deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO). 2. Disallowance of Payments Made to Clubs: The assessee contested the disallowance of ?34,500 paid to clubs, citing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Otis Elevator (195 ITR 682), which held such payments as revenue in nature and allowable. The Tribunal noted that similar claims were allowed in the assessee's favor for AY 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed this ground of appeal, reversing the lower authorities' disallowance. 3. Disallowance Under Section 14A: The AO made a disallowance of ?4.5 crore under Section 14A on a pro-rata basis, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that Rule 8D, used for such disallowance, was not applicable for AYs prior to 2008-09. The Tribunal, referencing its own decisions for AY 2000-01 to 2002-03 and 2004-05, directed the AO to compute the disallowance at 5% of the exempt income, thus partially allowing the assessee’s appeal. 4. Transfer Pricing Adjustment with Respect to Issuance of "Letters of Comfort": The AO made a transfer pricing adjustment of ?8.70 crore for the issuance of "Letters of Comfort" (LoC) by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The CIT(A) ruled that LoCs do not constitute an international transaction under Section 92B as they do not incur any cost or binding obligation. The Tribunal upheld this view, distinguishing between LoCs and enforceable guarantees, and referenced the Karnataka High Court's decision in United Breweries Holding Ltd. and the Tribunal's decision in India Hotels Co. Ltd. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's grounds, confirming that LoCs do not qualify as international transactions. 5. Jurisdictional Issues Concerning the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax: The assessee raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the assessment order passed by the Additional Commissioner, claiming it was without jurisdiction. However, no substantial arguments were presented on this ground. The Tribunal treated this ground as not pressed and dismissed it. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A had become academic due to the earlier decision to restrict the disallowance to 5% of exempt income. Conclusion: The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting the disallowances related to claims settled as bad debts or business loss, payments made to clubs, and restricting the Section 14A disallowance to 5% of exempt income. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the issuance of "Letters of Comfort" does not constitute an international transaction, thereby dismissing the revenue's cross-appeal. The jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee was dismissed as not pressed. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as not pressed.
|
