2019 (12) TMI 602 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IC - allocation of the cartage expenses and diesel and oil expenses among two units - determination of the eligible profit - HELD THAT - CIT-A has considered all the aspects of the computation of the eligible income for deduction u/s 80IC of the act. The learned CIT A has given the detailed reason with respect to the allocation of the cartage expenses and diesel and oil expenses towards the Badddi unit from the Noida unit. He also considered the allocation of the depreciation of the corporate office as common cost. He further examined the claim of the assessee with respect to the allocation of the manufacturing expenses between the 2 units with respect to the transfer of goods which resulted into reduction of the profits of the eligible unit. As Such he has considered all the arguments of the assessee with respect to the determination of the eligible profit. Thus, we do not find any infirmity with respect to any of the issues raised by assessee in the grounds of appeal. In view of the detail finding of the learned CIT A, we do not find any infirmity in the order. Accordingly all the grounds of appeal are dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Arm's length price for transfer of goods between units.
2. Rejection of certificates issued by practicing Cost Accountant.
3. Allocation of cartage inward and diesel & oil expenses.
4. Allocation of depreciation of corporate office.
5. Rejection of accounts and re-casting of manufacturing account.
6. Violation of principles of natural justice.
7. Adverse findings by the Commissioner of Income Tax.
8. Basis of assumptions and presumptions in the impugned order.
9. Miscellaneous grounds of appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Arm's Length Price for Transfer of Goods:
The assessee challenged the application of Section 80 IA (8) by the CIT(A), which resulted in a reduction of profits for the Baddi unit by ?1,39,85,181/-. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's (AO) determination that the transfer of goods from Noida to Baddi was not at arm's length price. The AO found that the inter-unit transactions were not at market rates, particularly the transfer of shoe uppers at cost plus 10% markup, which was not reflective of the market price. The CIT(A) concluded that the certificates provided by the assessee did not adequately demonstrate the market price, leading to the adjustment.

2. Rejection of Certificates Issued by Practicing Cost Accountant:
The CIT(A) rejected the certificates issued by the practicing Cost Accountant, which were prepared according to Cost Accounting Standards CAS-I and CAS-IV. The AO and CIT(A) found these certificates insufficient as they lacked quantitative details and did not properly allocate administrative overheads. The certificates were deemed unreliable for determining the arm's length price, despite their acceptance under excise laws.

3. Allocation of Cartage Inward and Diesel & Oil Expenses:
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision to allocate cartage inward and diesel & oil expenses amounting to ?27,86,033/- to the Baddi unit from the Noida unit. The AO found that these expenses were incurred for the company as a whole and should be allocated based on production in both units. The CIT(A) agreed with this allocation, noting that the expenses were not properly accounted for in the assessee's records.

4. Allocation of Depreciation of Corporate Office:
The CIT(A) supported the AO's allocation of ?48,75,448/- as depreciation of the corporate office to the Baddi unit. The AO noted that the corporate office provided services to both units, and therefore, its depreciation should be allocated accordingly. The CIT(A) found no reason for the non-allocation of this depreciation, especially when other expenses were allocated between the units.

5. Rejection of Accounts and Re-casting of Manufacturing Account:
The CIT(A) agreed with the AO's rejection of the assessee's accounts in their present form. The AO found inappropriate expense allocation and ad-hoc application of manufacturing expenses, making it impossible to ascertain the correct results for each unit. Consequently, the AO re-casted the manufacturing account, leading to a further reduction of profits for the Baddi unit by ?63,23,700/-.

6. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee claimed that the assessment order was framed in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no merit in this claim, as the assessee was given ample opportunity to present its case, and the assessment was conducted based on the available information and evidence.

7. Adverse Findings by the Commissioner of Income Tax:
The assessee argued that the adverse findings were perverse and not based on the submissions and evidence provided. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal disagreed, noting that the findings were based on a thorough examination of the records and were justified.

8. Basis of Assumptions and Presumptions in the Impugned Order:
The assessee contended that the impugned order was based on assumptions, presumptions, and incorrect application of law. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the order was well-reasoned and based on a detailed analysis of the facts and applicable law.

9. Miscellaneous Grounds of Appeal:
The assessee raised additional grounds of appeal, but the Tribunal found no merit in these grounds, as they were either repetitive or lacked sufficient basis.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order in its entirety. The detailed findings of the CIT(A) on each issue were found to be justified, and no infirmity was identified in the order. The appeal was dismissed, and the adjustments made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were deemed appropriate.

← Previous Next →