2025 (3) TMI 1081 - AT - Income Tax

Additions of Advance received from Customers - HELD THAT - The issues are covered by order in 2024 (10) TMI 32 - ITAT DELHI for A.Y. 2009-10 in assessee s own case as relying on Taparia Tools Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT assessee would be entitled to deduction of the entire expenditure in the year in which the amount was actually paid. Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of Security Deposit written off debited under the accounting head advances written off - HELD THAT - As in view smallness of the amount vis- -vis income of the assessee the assessee claim for disallowance to be allowed as business loss as it pertains to revenue field on account of security deposit for participating in tenders. TP adjustments in respect of international transactions of commission received with its Associated Enterprise - comparable selection - HELD THAT - Once the companies selected were dissimilar comparable are excluded then the operating profit/sales margin works out to 13.98. Moreover in subsequent years the TPO has accepted commission as Arm s Length and has not made any addition vide order dated 29.01.2015. Accordingly Ground of assessee s appeal is allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Tribunal considered several core legal questions in this appeal:

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding "advance received from customers" constituted revenue/income for the relevant assessment year.
Whether the disallowance of the security deposit written off was justified.
Whether the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments made by the AO were appropriate, particularly concerning the benchmarking of international transactions with associated enterprises.
Whether the levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D was valid.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Advance Received from Customers

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal referred to previous decisions in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Taparia Tools Ltd. was also considered.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the consistent treatment of advances in prior years and the principle that such advances do not constitute revenue until the corresponding service is rendered.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted the advance amounts were reflected as current liabilities and deferred revenue in the balance sheet, consistent with the percentage completion method under Accounting Standard (AS-7).
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that advances do not become income until services are rendered, aligning with prior judgments in the assessee's favor.
Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the grounds related to advances, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision.

Security Deposit Written Off

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act was considered, which allows deduction of business expenses.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the smallness of the amount relative to the total income and the business context of the deposit.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted the inability to recover the deposit due to lack of documentation and the nature of the transactions with government bodies.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found the write-off to be a business loss, allowable under section 37(1).
Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the ground, permitting the write-off as a business expense.

Transfer Pricing Adjustments

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal considered the selection of comparables and the application of the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as per the Income Tax Rules.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the TPO had erred in selecting dissimilar comparables and not considering foreign exchange fluctuations as part of operating profits.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the TPO's comparables were functionally dissimilar and that foreign exchange gains/losses should be included in operating profits.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that only functionally similar comparables should be used and foreign exchange fluctuations should be considered in profit calculations.
Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the ground, finding the TP adjustments inappropriate.

Levy of Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D

Conclusions: This ground was consequential and allowed based on the decisions on the other grounds.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal quoted the Supreme Court's decision in Taparia Tools Ltd., emphasizing the principle that an assessee is entitled to claim the entire expenditure in the year it is paid.
Core principles established: Advances received do not constitute income until services are rendered; only functionally similar comparables should be used in TP analysis; foreign exchange fluctuations are part of operating profits.
Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, reversing the CIT(A)'s decisions on advances and TP adjustments, and permitting the write-off of the security deposit.

← Previous Next →