2024 (5) TMI 587 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - comparable selection - Cera Sanitary Ware Limited and HSIL Limited - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2023 (9) TMI 543 - ITAT HYDERABAD the terms used are generic in nature giving an impression that the company is engaged in diversified activities, the core activity of both the entities is dealing in tiles and sanitaryware. One shall not lose sight of the fact that information contained in the websites of any entity and sometimes in the annual report would be intended to give a very attractive picture of such company and its areas of activity will be mentioned in usually general and widespread terms to attract the customers and the same cannot be given much weight. In these circumstances, we agree with the findings of the learned DRP and decline to exclude HSIL Ltd., from the list of comparables. Cera Sanitary Ware Limited - The perusal of Rule 10(B)(1)(e) clearly mentioned that the net profit margin realized by the assessee from the international transactions is required to be compared in relation to the cost incurred or the assets employed by enterprise (assessee). In the present case, as noted by the Tribunal in its finding in para 25 the functions performed by the assessee and that of the Cera Sanitaryware Limited are comparable and what was distinguished by the Tribunal in its earlier order is that with the consumption of raw material used by the company (Cera) for different activities is not relatable to the proportion of the revenue by the said activities. In our understanding, once the assessee company is broadly compared with the Cera Sanitaryware Limited, then what is required to be seen is the net profit margin earned by the company (Cera Sanitaryware Limited) with that of the assessee. In the present case, the DRP has considered the submission of the assessee and thereafter, in para 2.2.2 reproduced hereinabove, had concluded that this company is comparable with the assessee and accordingly, the Assessing Officer based on the direction of the DRP has made the assessment in the hands of the assessee. Since this company was excluded by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 2023 (9) TMI 543 - ITAT HYDERABAD , therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we direct the learned Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude this comparable from the list of comparables. Crystalizing tax demand by ignoring the MAT credit carried forward from previous assessment years - HELD THAT - We grant the MAT credit as admissible in law.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the consequential assessment order.
2. Adjustment to international transactions by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
3. Inclusion of certain companies in the comparable set.
4. Consideration of certain cost elements as non-operating in nature.
5. Ignoring the MAT credit carried forward from previous assessment years.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Consequential Assessment Order:
The assessee challenged the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming it was prejudicial and bad in law.

2. Adjustment to International Transactions by the TPO:
The assessee contested the adjustment of INR 3,33,61,422 to the international transactions related to the purchase of raw materials/finished goods from its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The DRP had directed the recomputation of these adjustments, which were subsequently revised by the DCIT/ACIT, TP3 Hyderabad.

3. Inclusion of Certain Companies in the Comparable Set:
The primary issue was the inclusion of HSIL Limited and Cera Sanitary Ware Limited in the comparable set. The Tribunal, following its previous decision for A.Y. 2015-16, upheld the inclusion of HSIL Limited, stating that the company's segmental results in consolidated financial statements were reliable for comparable analysis. However, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of Cera Sanitary Ware Limited from the comparable set, noting significant differences in the functional profile and the proportionate revenues from different activities.

4. Consideration of Certain Cost Elements as Non-Operating in Nature:
This ground was not pressed by the assessee and hence, was not adjudicated.

5. Ignoring the MAT Credit Carried Forward from Previous Assessment Years:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the MAT credit as admissible in law.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions to exclude Cera Sanitary Ware Limited from the list of comparables and to grant the MAT credit. The inclusion of HSIL Limited as a comparable was upheld. The assessment order was otherwise maintained.