2018 (5) TMI 1314 - AT - Income Tax

TPA - ALP determination - aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its manufacturing activities rejection - Held that - Benchmarking the international transactions of assessee, wherein the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities, then we hold that various activities are to be aggregated for determining the arm's length price of its international transactions. Direct the Assessing Officer that while determining the PLI to adopt net profit to sales in order to benchmark the international transactions Benefit of range of /-5% is available if the variation does not exceed the said tolerance margin. The ground of appeal is thus, allowed. International transactions of procurement support services provided to associated enterprises are to be aggregated and benchmarked along with international transactions under the manufacturing activities. Deduction under section 80IB computation - Held that - The said issue is covered against the assessee by the earlier order of Tribunal and wherein, the Tribunal following the same parity of reasoning as in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 had upheld the orders of authorities below in allocating head office expenses, Director s salary, etc to Daman unit and upheld the re-computation of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. - Decided against assessee Claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) - expenditure incurred on Research Development activity - whether where the facility has been recognized and necessary certification is issued by the prescribed authority, the assessee can avail the deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on in-house R D facility? - Held that - The amendment brought in by the IT (Tenth Amendment) Rules w.e.f. 01.07.2016, wherein separate part has been inserted for certifying the amount of expenditure from year to year and the amended form No.3CL thus, lays down the procedure to be followed by the prescribed authority. Prior to the aforesaid amendment in 2016, no such procedure / methodology was prescribed. In the absence of the same, there is no merit in the order of Assessing Officer in curtailing the expenditure and consequent weighted deduction claim under section 35(2AB) on the surmise that prescribed authority has only approved part of expenditure in form No.3CL. We find no merit in the said order of authorities below. The Courts have held that for deduction under section 35(2AB) first step was the recognition of facility by the prescribed authority and entering an agreement between the facility and the prescribed authority. Once such an agreement has been executed, under which recognition has been given to the facility, then thereafter the role of Assessing Officer is to look into and allow the expenditure incurred on in-house R D facility as weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Accordingly, we hold so. Thus, we reverse the order of Assessing Officer in curtailing the deduction claimed under section 35(2AB)

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
2. International Transaction relating to export of IC Engines under Manufacturing Activity
3. Inappropriate comparison of profitability between "export to Associated Enterprises (AEs)" segment and "domestic sales" segment
4. Inappropriate approach adopted by TPO in application of "net profit to total cost" as Profit Level Indicator (PLI)
5. Benefit of the variation/reduction of 5 percent from the arithmetic mean
6. International Transaction relating to Procurement Support Services
7. Disallowance of Deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act
8. Disallowance of expenses under section 14A
9. Bad debts inadvertently not claimed in the return of income
10. Disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act
11. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The assessee contested an adjustment of ?61,19,00,000 made by the DCIT to the value of international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) concerning the export of IC engines and procurement support services. The Tribunal found that the aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its manufacturing activities was valid, as previously upheld in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Tribunal directed that various activities should be aggregated for determining the arm's length price of international transactions.

2. International Transaction relating to export of IC Engines under Manufacturing Activity:
The DCIT rejected the external comparable companies selected by the assessee for benchmarking the manufacturing function. The Tribunal reiterated its earlier stance that the margins of the assessee should be compared with the average margins of external comparable companies when applying the TNMM method. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to consider the case of the assessee and determine the arm's length price accordingly.

3. Inappropriate comparison of profitability between "export to Associated Enterprises (AEs)" segment and "domestic sales" segment:
The Tribunal found that the DCIT erred in comparing the segmental profitability of the "export to AEs" segment with the "domestic sales" segment, ignoring product differences, market differences, and the functions, assets, and risks (FAR) analysis. The Tribunal held that the comparison should be made with uncontrolled transactions, and directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to re-compute the adjustment by comparing the margins of the assessee with those of external comparables.

4. Inappropriate approach adopted by TPO in application of "net profit to total cost" as Profit Level Indicator (PLI):
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the "net profit to sales" as the PLI instead of "net profit to total cost," in line with the precedent set in the assessee’s earlier case.

5. Benefit of the variation/reduction of 5 percent from the arithmetic mean:
The Tribunal allowed the benefit of the +/- 5% range from the arithmetic mean, as per the proviso to Section 92C (2) of the Act, if the variation does not exceed the said tolerance margin.

6. International Transaction relating to Procurement Support Services:
The Tribunal found that the DCIT erred in rejecting certain comparable companies and accepting others without cogent reasons. It directed that the international transactions of procurement support services provided to AEs should be aggregated and benchmarked along with international transactions under the manufacturing activities.

7. Disallowance of Deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction under section 80IB by allocating a portion of common expenses to the profits of the eligible unit, following the precedent set in the assessee’s earlier cases.

8. Disallowance of expenses under section 14A:
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee’s claim of expenses relatable to exempt income under section 14A. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of ?19,63,021/- as previously determined in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2008-09.

9. Bad debts inadvertently not claimed in the return of income:
The Tribunal held that the additional claim of bad debts, which was not initially made in the return of income but was raised during assessment proceedings, should be considered by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and decide the issue in accordance with the law.

10. Disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act:
The Tribunal found that the deduction under section 35(2AB) should be allowed based on the approval of the R&D facility by the DSIR, not on the expenditure approved in form No.3CL. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee.

11. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings:
The Tribunal did not specifically address the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the provided text.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee in part, upholding some claims and directing the Assessing Officer to re-evaluate others based on the principles established in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years.

← Previous Next →