9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 405 - AT - Income TaxComputation of deduction under section 10 A/10 B - brought forward business losses as well as unabsorbed depreciation - Held that - In the present case before us the assessee has brought forward business losses as well as unobserved depreciation. The act specifies the sequence in which these allowances can be set off. Section 72 (3) implies that, the set off of unobserved depreciation as per section 32 (2) against business income shall be given effect to only after setting off the brought forward business losses. From the calculation made by the Ld.AO, it is observed that the Ld.AO has adjusted the amount of unobserved depreciation from the business income before making adjustment for brought forward business losses. The circular relied upon by the Ld.AR is not applicable to the present case under consideration as it is applicable where the set off each to be made against the profits of a STP/EOU/SEZ unit, before the deduction under section 10 A/10 B of the Income tax Act is allowed. Allowability of expenses under section 37 (1) - Held that - CIT (A) was right in allowing the claim of the assessee to treat the stamp duty and registration expenses as revenue expenditure.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) and selection of comparables. 2. Treatment of registration fee and stamp duty expenses for lease deed. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) and Selection of Comparables: The assessee, engaged in software development services for its Associated Enterprises (AE), filed its return of income declaring a total income of ?14,53,161/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had entered into international transactions, prompting a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of ALP under Section 92CA(1). The assessee used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with operating profit to total cost (OP/TC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI), calculating its margin at 14.86%. The TPO rejected the assessee's transfer pricing study due to the use of multiple-year data and qualitative analysis for eliminating companies instead of quantitative filters. The TPO conducted an independent search using various quantitative filters and issued a detailed show cause notice, which the assessee responded to with objections. The TPO's draft order was followed by a final assessment order by the AO. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], disputing the comparables selected by the TPO. The CIT(A) remanded the issue to the TPO for recalculating margins of comparables selected by the assessee, specifically Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., KALS Information Systems Ltd., and Softsol India Ltd. The TPO's recalculations were partially accepted by the CIT(A), who also excluded Celestial Biolabs from the comparables. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision, particularly the deletion of the addition made on account of ALP. The Tribunal noted the functional profile of the assessee and the objections raised regarding the comparables. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) on the exclusion of Celestial Biolabs due to functional dissimilarity and upheld the recalculated margins for the other comparables, directing the TPO to exclude Celestial Biolabs from the list of comparables. 2. Treatment of Registration Fee and Stamp Duty Expenses for Lease Deed: The assessee claimed deduction of rent and rates expenses, including stamp duty and registration expenses for a lease deed, under Section 37(1) of the Act. The AO disallowed the expenses, treating them as capital expenditure and allowing only depreciation. The CIT(A), relying on various High Court decisions, held that the expenses should be treated as revenue in nature and allowed the deduction. The Revenue appealed against this decision, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal referred to Section 37(1), which allows deduction for expenses not being capital or personal in nature, and noted the CIT(A)'s reliance on precedents from the Bombay and Madras High Courts, which held that the period of the lease is not decisive in determining the nature of the expenditure. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was correct in treating the stamp duty and registration expenses as revenue expenditure. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both the determination of ALP and the treatment of registration fee and stamp duty expenses for the lease deed. The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude Celestial Biolabs from the comparables and accepted the recalculated margins for the other comparables, affirming the CIT(A)'s approach to the functional profile and risk assessment of the assessee.
|
