9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1146 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance for warranty expenses - addition of the said disallowance while computing total income under the normal provisions of the Act and also book profits u/s 115JB - Held that - In the facts of the case before us, there is no allegation that the change in the method of accounting of making the claim by way of provision as against on actual basis was not bonafide or it was due to some ulterior motive of evasion of tax. It is also noted that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd (2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has held that assessee is entitled to make claim on account of warranty expenses by way of provisions by estimating the amount on some scientific basis. Further, the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Vinitec Corporation (2005 (5) TMI 54 - DELHI High Court) has held that assessee is entitled to change the method of accounting with respect to claim of warranty expenses from actual basis to provision basis . Thus, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and legal position as discussed above, we find that assessee was entitled to make claim on account of provision for warranty expenses in the year before us. However, the amount quantified for the provision is also under dispute and rightly so. It is brought before us that computation made by the assessee for estimating the provision was incorrect. Ld. Counsel has also fairly agreed to this position. We have verified the facts and figures. It is informed that the basis for making provision in this year was on the basis of actual claim booked in FY 2007-08 as compared to the turnover of FY 2006-07. It is informed that the amount of actual claim booked in financial year 2007-08 was ₹ 5,03,93,000 and the amount of turnover for the FY 2006-07 was to the tune of 825,30,47,487 (i.e. ₹ 825.31 crores). Thus, the ratio of the two comes to around 0.61%. Now if we apply the ratio of 0.61% to the turnover of FY 2007-08 which is ₹ 900.52 crores, then we get an amount of ₹ 5,49,85,586 as per the chart provided by the assessee. The said figure has been accepted as correct by Ld. CIT-DR also. Thus, we find it proper that amount of provision should be allowed for the said figure of ₹ 549,85,586. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the disallowance to this extent and the balance of disallowance, if any, is upheld. The assessee gets part relief. With regard to the adjustment in book profit u/s 115JB is concerned, it is noted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Becton Dickason India (P) Ltd. (2012 (12) TMI 210 - DELHI HIGH COURT), wherein it has been held that the provision for warranty cannot be treated as provision for diminution in value of any assets so as to be covered by Explanation 1(i) to section 115JB (2) and thus no additions to book profit can be made. Further, Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. (supra) held that amount of provision made on account of warranty expenses cannot be said to be unascertained liability. Thus, taking into account both these decisions, we find that no addition could have been made u/s 115JB for this amount. Therefore, addition to book profit is directed to be totally deleted. Denying benefit of deduction u/s 80IC on the amount of scrap sales - Held that - It is clear that the Tribunal on considering the facts of the case and various judgements held that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IC on the amount of sale of scrap. Therefore, we direct the AO to grant the benefit of deduction u/s 80IC on the amount of sale of scrap. Denying deduction u/s 80IC on the interest income - Held that - Tribunal for AY 2009-10 held that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC benefit shall not be allowed on the interest income. Therefore, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal for AY 2009-10 this ground is decided against the assessee and the action of AO is upheld.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer pricing adjustments 2. Corporate tax adjustments 3. Adjustments to book profit while computing income under section 115JB of the Act 4. Additions/disallowances for computing income under normal provisions of the Act 5. Denial of deduction under section 80IC of the Act Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments: - Non-consideration of comparability analysis: The appellant contended that the AO and TPO erred in not considering the comparability analysis documented in the transfer pricing study report for benchmarking the international transaction of payment of royalty to AE. - Determining arm's length price of royalty as Nil: The AO/TPO considered the appellant as the economic owner of the brand name/trademarks owned by its AE, Matsushita Electric Works Limited (MEW), without any basis. - Factual error: The AO/TPO made a factually incorrect observation that the appellant used brands/trademarks owned by MEW in earlier years without paying any royalty. - Ignorance of transfer pricing principles: The AO/TPO erred in appreciating that the payment of royalty by the appellant to its AE is in line with dealings between third parties, which is the essence of transfer pricing principles. - Benefit Test: The AO/TPO failed to appreciate the benefits received/receivable by the appellant on account of usage of brand name/trademarks owned by MEW. - Incorrect application of CUP method: The AO/TPO did not appreciate the non-applicability of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for benchmarking the international transaction of payment of royalty. - Incorrect rejection of TNMM: The AO/TPO erred in rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) adopted by the appellant for benchmarking the international transaction of payment of royalty. - Adjustment on account of service fees/handling charges towards Oracle software: The AO/TPO made an adjustment to the total income of the appellant on account of service fees/handling charges paid by the appellant to its AE in respect of Oracle software. - Commercial expediency challenged: The AO/TPO challenged the commercial expediency of the appellant in relation to payment of royalty and service fees/handling charges. Resolution: The issue of transfer pricing adjustment on the amount of royalty paid to MEW was resolved through a mutual agreement procedure between India and Japan, where the payment of royalty was agreed to be allowable at 1.15%. Consequently, these grounds were not pressed by the appellant and were dismissed as not pressed. Grounds 8 and 9 were also dismissed due to the smallness of the amounts involved. 2. Corporate Tax Adjustments: - Disallowing provisions for doubtful debts: The AO erred in making an addition in respect of provision for doubtful debts while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. - Disallowing provisions for slow-moving inventory: The AO erred in making an addition in respect of provision for slow-moving inventories while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. - Disallowing provisions for loans and advances: The AO erred in making an addition in respect of provision for loans and advances while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. - Disallowing provision for warranty: The AO erred in making an addition in respect of provision for warranty while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. - Factual error: The AO made a factually incorrect observation that the past performance of the warranty expenses vis-à-vis sales did not support or rationalize the provision made. Resolution: The appellant informed that appropriate relief had been granted in subsequent years based on actual claims, making these grounds infructuous. Thus, grounds 10, 11, and 12 were dismissed as such. 3. Adjustments to Book Profit While Computing Income under Section 115JB of the Act: - Disallowing provision for warranty: The appellant argued that the provision for warranty was made on a scientific basis and should not be considered an unascertained liability. The AO's disallowance was based on the lack of a scientific basis for estimating the provision and the change in the method of accounting from actual to provision basis during the year. Resolution: The Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument that the provision for warranty was made on a scientific basis and directed the AO to delete the disallowance to the extent of ?5,49,85,586, while upholding the balance of disallowance. Additionally, the Tribunal held that no addition could be made to the book profit under section 115JB for the provision for warranty, as it was not an unascertained liability. 4. Additions/Disallowances for Computing Income under Normal Provisions of the Act: - Not granting deduction under section 80IC of the Act in respect of scrap sales: The AO denied the benefit of deduction on the amount received from the sale of scrap, arguing that it did not form part of the business income derived from the industrial undertaking. - Not granting deduction under section 80IC of the Act in respect of interest income: The AO denied the benefit of deduction on the interest income on fixed deposits. - Reallocation of expenses while computing deduction under section 80IC of the Act: The AO reallocated indirect expenses incurred by the branches to the Haridwar unit without allocating the corresponding margins earned by the branches. - Reducing the allocation of branches' profit while computing deduction under section 80IC of the Act: The AO reduced the profits eligible for deduction on the ground that they were earned from trading activity. - Disallowance of provision for warranty: The AO disallowed the provision for warranty amounting to ?10,64,00,000. - Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act: The AO initiated penalty proceedings for various disallowances/additions. Resolution: - Scrap Sales: The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the benefit of deduction under section 80IC on the amount of sale of scrap, following the Tribunal's order in the appellant's own case for AY 2009-10. - Interest Income: The Tribunal upheld the AO's action, denying the benefit of deduction under section 80IC on the interest income, following the Tribunal's order for AY 2009-10. - Reallocation of Expenses and Reduction of Branches' Profit: These grounds were not pressed by the appellant and were dismissed. - Provision for Warranty: The Tribunal directed the AO to examine and grant the claim of deduction under section 80IC on the recomputed higher amount of profit after adding back all sustained disallowances. 5. Denial of Deduction under Section 80IC of the Act: - Revenue Generated through Sale of Scrap: The AO denied the benefit of deduction under section 80IC on the revenue generated through the sale of scrap. Resolution: The Tribunal allowed the benefit of deduction under section 80IC on the revenue generated through the sale of scrap, following the Tribunal's order for AY 2008-09. Conclusion: The appeals were partly allowed, with specific directions to the AO to grant deductions and recompute the income and tax payable as per the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of fair, justified, legal, and transparent computation of income and tax payable.
|
