9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 820 - AT - Income TaxValidity of the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) - non-existing entity - Held that - When the assessment was framed by the AO vide order dated 29.12.2015 in the name of M/s Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd. the said company had already amalgamated with M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and therefore it was not inexistence. Moreover it is clear from the provisions of Section 170(2) of the Act that in the case of amalgamation the assessment must be made on the successor i.e. the amalgamated company and not on the predecessor i.e. amalgamating company. Therefore in the present case the assessment framed by the AO vide order dated 29.12.2015 on the amalgamating company i.e. M/s Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd. which was not inexistence on the date of passing the assessment order was not valid and as such the same is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of the assessment order. 2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of royalty payments. 3. Disallowance of royalty as prior period expense. 4. Allowance of royalty deduction in the appropriate year. 5. Computation/levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Validity of the Assessment Order: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the assessment order dated 29.12.2015 was void ab initio as it was passed in the name of a non-existent entity, M/s Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd., which had amalgamated with M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. w.e.f. 01.04.2012. The assessee argued that the amalgamation was approved by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and duly intimated to the Revenue authorities. Despite being informed, the AO issued notices and framed the assessment in the name of the non-existent entity. The Tribunal referred to various case laws, including CIT v. Micra India (P.) Ltd., Spice Infotainment Ltd. Vs CIT, and CIT Vs Dimension Apparels Pvt. Ltd., which held that an assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity is void and not a procedural irregularity curable under Section 292B. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order as void ab initio. 2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Account of Royalty Payments: The assessee challenged the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for making an adjustment of ?69,93,38,000/- on account of royalty payments. The TPO/DRP held that the royalty payments did not satisfy the arm's length principle and incorrectly applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method instead of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) used by the assessee. The assessee argued that the TPO/DRP selected functionally dissimilar license agreements and did not consider the specific approval from the Secretariat of Industrial Assistance, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. However, since the primary ground regarding the validity of the assessment order was upheld, the Tribunal did not provide a specific finding on this issue. 3. Disallowance of Royalty as Prior Period Expense: The AO/DRP disallowed royalty aggregating to ?16,67,00,000/- as a deduction during the relevant year, considering it a prior period expense. The assessee contended that the liability crystallized after receiving regulatory approvals during the year under consideration. Again, no specific finding was given by the Tribunal on this issue due to the quashing of the assessment order. 4. Allowance of Royalty Deduction in the Appropriate Year: The assessee argued that if the royalty was considered a prior period item, it should be allowed as a deduction in the year to which it pertains. This issue was also not addressed by the Tribunal separately due to the quashing of the assessment order. 5. Computation/Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act: The assessee contested the computation and levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. However, this issue was not separately adjudicated by the Tribunal due to the primary ground being upheld. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the assessment order dated 29.12.2015 as void ab initio since it was passed in the name of a non-existent entity, M/s Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd. The Tribunal did not address the other issues raised by the assessee due to the quashing of the assessment order.
|
