9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 213 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - adjustment on account of management services fees - CIT-A deleted the addition - DR argued that deductibility of expenditure in the context of normal provisions such as section 37 of the Act cannot be applicable to the transactions between associated enterprises governed by the transfer pricing provisions - HELD THAT - We note that in order to arrive at such conclusion this Tribunal placed reliance in A.Y. 2013-14 in assessee s own case vide its order dated 04-07-2019 2019 (7) TMI 1826 - ITAT PUNE wherein, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the CIT(A) deciding the similar issue in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. 2. Justification of deleting the adjustment of management services fees made by the AO/TPO. 3. Interpretation of transfer pricing provisions in relation to deductibility of expenditure under section 37 of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal by the Revenue was filed with a delay of 177 days, which the assessee explained with bonafide reasons. The Tribunal found the reasons genuine and condoned the delay. 2. The main issue considered was whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment of management services fees amounting to &8377;14,71,41,219 made by the AO/TPO. The assessee, a joint venture in manufacturing drive train components, incurred these fees in a domestic transaction with M/s. Asia Investment Pvt. Ltd. The AO/TPO disallowed the fees as no evidence was provided to establish the services rendered by the associated enterprise (AE). The CIT(A), however, deleted the adjustment based on the Tribunal's previous order in the assessee's case for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2014-15. 3. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) should have reconsidered the arm's length price (ALP) of management services afresh rather than relying on earlier orders. The argument centered on the difference between general provisions like section 37(1) of the Act and transfer pricing provisions under section 92CA(3). The Revenue emphasized that transfer pricing provisions override general provisions in cases of specified domestic transactions, necessitating ALP compliance. 4. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in applying general provisions to transactions between associated enterprises governed by transfer pricing provisions. The Revenue referenced a Special Bench decision and emphasized the wider scope of transfer pricing provisions compared to sections 37 and 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Revenue highlighted the necessity for proving commensurate benefits and ALP compliance in such transactions. 5. The assessee countered by providing detailed evidence of services rendered by the AE, including training programs and marketing assistance. Despite the evidence submitted to the TPO, the TPO held that no substantiation was provided for the management fees paid to AIPL. The Tribunal, relying on previous orders, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee for the assessment year in question. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the adjustment of management services fees. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with transfer pricing provisions in transactions between associated enterprises and upheld the principles established in previous orders in the assessee's case.
|
