2023 (5) TMI 1220 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IC - income earned from sale of scrap - According to the AO, the words derived from pertains to sale of the goods manufactured in the eligible unit and scrap sales are not byproduct of the assessee - HELD THAT - We observe that the same issue had come up before the Pune Tribunal for A.Y. 2016-17 2021 (12) TMI 821 - ITAT PUNE and there also, by placing reliance on the earlier decision of Pune Tribunal in assessee s own case in 2017 (12) TMI 1826 - ITAT PUNE , Tribunal had provided the relief to the assessee. The ld.DR also, on principle, conceded that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. Unable to demonstrate any contradicting facts with those already on record nor could furnish any judgment of higher forum favouring the Revenue on this issue. As per principle of consistency, on the same parity of reasoning, deduction u/s. 80IC shall be allowed for the sale of scrap. Ground of Revenue are dismissed. Disallowance u/s. 14A - CIT(A) placing reliance in assessee s own case in 2017 (11) TMI 1929 - ITAT PUNE observed that since the facts were identical to the year with the appeal following the same, he allowed relief on this issue also to the assessee - HELD THAT - The principle of res judicata are not applicable in the income tax proceedings and, therefore, as a quasi-judicial authority, the ld. CIT(A) should have examined the facts for this year and then compared them with the facts in a definite manner as appearing in the Pune Tribunal s decision which was relied on by him. Such exercise has not been done as is evident in his order. On the contrary, it is evident from the order of the AO that after considering the submissions filed by the assessee, he has categorically stated why disallowance u/s. 14A is warranted in this case and that he was not satisfied with the calculation of the assessee. It is clearly evident that the AO has recorded his reasons and satisfaction specifically in his order while addressing this issue and invoking sec.14A r.w.r. 8D. Decided in favour of revenue. TP adjustment - Allocation of certain corporate expenses to the 80IC unit at Roorkee - HELD THAT - Admittedly, in this case, the allocation of corporate expenses was done for both the units on the basis of sale for the year under consideration. It is not a case of cost allocation for rendering any services by one unit to the other, which otherwise would have required the ALP determination by applying an arm s length mark-up. Here is a case where common administrative expenses, such as, directors' salary and audit fee etc., have been shared between both the units on the basis of revenue earned by them de hors such expenses culminating into rendition or receipt of any services or property by/from one unit to another. We thus uphold the view taken by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of the Revenue stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Deduction under Section 80IC on income from the sale of scrap.
2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act.
3. Transfer pricing adjustment for the allocation of common expenses.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deduction under Section 80IC on Income from Sale of Scrap

The Revenue challenged the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC on income earned from the sale of scrap. The AO argued that the income from the sale of scrap does not qualify as "derived from" the eligible business activities, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India vs. CIT. The AO reduced the deduction amount by excluding the scrap sale proceeds from the net profit. However, the CIT(A) allowed the deduction, relying on the Pune Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for previous years, which allowed the deduction for scrap sales. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the principle of consistency and noting that the Revenue could not provide any contradictory higher forum judgment.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A

The AO disallowed Rs. 1,13,63,123/- under Section 14A, arguing that the assessee did not segregate expenses incurred for earning tax-free income. The CIT(A) provided relief to the assessee by relying on the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, which found no satisfaction recorded by the AO for disallowance under Section 14A. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to examine the specific facts for the current year, where the AO had indeed recorded satisfaction. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the Revenue's grounds.

Issue 3: Transfer Pricing Adjustment

The AO made a transfer pricing adjustment by adding a markup of 7.48% on the cost allocated to the Roorkee unit, arguing that the assessee did not demonstrate that the transaction was at arm's length. The CIT(A) provided relief, noting that the allocation of corporate expenses was on an actual basis and not a transfer of services requiring a markup. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view, stating that the allocation was based on revenue earned by the units and did not involve any service transfer necessitating an arm's length markup.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds on the deduction under Section 80IC and transfer pricing adjustment while allowing the Revenue's grounds on the disallowance under Section 14A. The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed.