2015 (12) TMI 514 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - DRP directed the Assessing Officer to exclude bank charges and other financial charges while determining the figure of the interest expenditure for quantifying the disallowance under Rule 8D of the Rules. The Revenue has challenged the aforesaid direction of the DRP. After considering the rival stands, we find no infirmity in the decision of the DRP, which is in conformity with the phraseology of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. - Decided against revenue Denial of claim of deduction under section 80-IC in respect of the two units at Guwahati manufacturing mosquito repellent mats and liquid - Held that - The relevant discussion in the order of DRP reveals that apart from the difference in the products being manufactured, it has also been brought out that the manufacturing process involved in manufacture of mosquito repellent coils is different than the process required for manufacturing mosquito repellent mat and liquid. These factual aspects have not been negated by the Revenue and, therefore, the decision of the DRP cannot be faulted with. Apart from the aforesaid, we have carefully perused the discussion made by the AO in the draft assessment order and find that no specific reason has been propounded to demonstrate that the profits declared in the Guwahati unit was otherwise untrue except by comparing it with the level of profit of the Pondicherry unit, which ostensibly was not manufacturing the same commodity. Under these circumstances, in our view, there is no merit in the ground raised by the Revenue challenging the direction of the DRP for allowing the claim for deduction under section 80-IC of the Act for Guwahati units in accordance with the claim made in the return of income. - Decided against revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Allocation of interest and administrative expenditure towards exempt dividend income under Section 115JB.
2. Application of Section 14A and Rule 8D for computing book profits.
3. Reallocation of overheads for deduction under Sections 80IB/80IC.
4. Depreciation rate on computer peripherals.
5. Determination of arm's length price for related party transactions.
6. Disallowance of reimbursement of advertisement expenses.
7. Guarantee commission for guarantee given on behalf of an associated enterprise.
8. Computation of book profits concerning provision for diminution in value of investments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allocation of Interest and Administrative Expenditure:
The assessee contested the DRP's decision to allocate Rs. 14,25,150 towards earning exempt dividend income and reducing the net dividend income while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to be decided afresh in light of the precedent set in the assessee's case for assessment year 2008-09.

2. Application of Section 14A and Rule 8D:
The AO computed a disallowance of Rs. 17,40,847 under Rule 8D, which the DRP reduced to Rs. 14,25,150 by excluding bank charges and other financial expenses. The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this matter.

3. Reallocation of Overheads for Deduction under Sections 80IB/80IC:
The AO reallocated 50% of certain overheads to non-eligible undertakings, which the assessee contested. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions, ruling that the allocation method used by the assessee was reasonable and deleted the AO's reallocation, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal.

4. Depreciation Rate on Computer Peripherals:
The AO allowed depreciation on UPS & Printers at 15%, treating them as Plant & Machinery instead of 60% claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal followed its decision from the previous year, allowing the depreciation at 60%.

5. Determination of Arm's Length Price for Related Party Transactions:
The AO compared the actual sales price and arm's length price on a product-wise basis rather than an aggregate country-wise basis. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, allowing the aggregation of transactions for determining the arm's length price, following its earlier decisions.

6. Disallowance of Reimbursement of Advertisement Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 20,00,000 paid to an associated enterprise for advertisement expenses due to lack of substantiation. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting the assessee's failure to establish that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

7. Guarantee Commission for Guarantee Given on Behalf of Associated Enterprise:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 14,82,960, later reduced by the DRP to Rs. 6,27,920, for guarantee commission on a loan guarantee given to a subsidiary in Bangladesh. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to rework the addition in line with precedents from earlier years.

8. Computation of Book Profits Concerning Provision for Diminution in Value of Investments:
The AO did not follow the DRP's direction to verify and potentially allow a deduction for a provision for diminution in the value of investments. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the facts and grant the deduction if the provision was added back in the earlier year, preventing double addition.

9. Profit Reworking for Guwahati Units:
The AO partially denied the deduction under Section 80-IC for Guwahati units by comparing their profit margins with those of Pondicherry units. The DRP and Tribunal found the AO's comparison flawed due to different products being manufactured at the two locations. The Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, directing the AO to re-examine certain issues in light of established precedents and factual verifications.

← Previous Next →