2023 (11) TMI 133 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of engineering fees paid to its head office - time log sheets were not filed - Tribunal concluded that there was no material basis for discrediting the debit notes furnished by the respondent/assessee - HELD THAT - We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal for the reason that the involvement of the respondent/assessee in the project which was under execution is not in doubt. The DMRC had availed the engineering services rendered by the employees of the head office. Assessee only remitted the engineering fee to the head office. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the debit note provided sufficient information as noted above, not only concerning the names of the employees, but also as to the nature of duties and number of hours that they spent on the job assigned to them. Since the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, no interference is called for, especially in the circumstance where the appellant/revenue has not proposed any question which is indicative of the fact that any of the findings returned by the Tribunal is perverse. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing and re-filing the appeal; Disallowance of engineering fees paid by the respondent/assessee to its head office.

Delay in filing and re-filing the appeal:
The appellant/revenue sought condonation of a 5-day delay in filing and a 38-day delay in re-filing the appeal. The respondent/assessee's counsel had no objection to condoning the delay, and the court ordered accordingly, disposing of the applications in those terms.

Disallowance of engineering fees:
The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2005-06 and aimed to challenge the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the disallowance of engineering fees paid by the respondent/assessee to its head office. The disallowance amount was Rs. 6,34,83,482. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the fees due to missing time log sheets, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, noting that the expenses were related to a project for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and that the transactions were at Arm's Length Price (ALP) according to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The Tribunal found no basis to discredit the debit notes provided by the respondent/assessee, which detailed employee names, duties, and hours worked. The court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing the respondent's involvement in the DMRC project and the sufficient information provided in the debit notes. As the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and no perverse findings were identified, the court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, concluding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was closed accordingly.