9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring of capital expenditure. [DCIT v. Core healthcare 2008 (10) TMI 74 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Also as decided in CIT v. Finley Mills Ltd. [1951 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] that an expenditure incurred in registering for the first time its trademark, then by registration the owner is merely absolved thereafter from obligation to prove his ownership of trademark. Thus the expenditure is neither for the creation of an asset nor an advantage for ever - in favour of assessee. Weighted deduction for expenditure on Scientific Research u/s. 35(2AB) in respect of Clinical Trial and Bio-equivalence Study disallowed - Held that:- From the contents of the explanation of Section 25(2AB) it is found that not only the expenditure incurred on clinical drug trial but the expenditure incurred for obtaining approval from any regulatory authority under any Central, State or Provincial Act and also the expenditure incurred for filing an application for a patent under the Patent Act 1970 are stated to be covered within the definition of expenditure on scientific research. For a clinical drug trial, the first stage is to enroll volunteers and/or patient into small pilot studies and subsequently large sca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the car - in favour of assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on Hummar H2 motorcar - Held that:- As decided in CIT Vs Varanasi Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ] even if the trucks are in the name of the Director, depreciation is allowable to the assessee because the trucks were purchased in the name of the Director just for the convenience but the funds have been invested by the assessee company and hiring rent received from such tucks have been credited by the company in their account. As in the present case there is no finding by the authorities below on the aspect whether the car in question was used for the business purpose the assessee and disallowance was made merely on this basis that the car in question is in the name of the Director of the assessee company - restore this matter back to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision & burden is on the assessee to establish the business use of this car and, thereafter, the A.O. should pass necessary order - in favour of assessee for statistical purpose. Restricting the deduction u/s. 80IC & 80IB - Held that:- The stand of the A.O. cannot be approved because it is not a reasonable basis for comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DRP, Ahmedabad dated 27.09.2011. 2. Ground No.1 of the appeal is as under: "1. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 3,65,18,252/- by holding that the Product Registration Expenses and reimbursement of expenses for Product Registration Support Services were capital in nature, merely eligible for depreciation u/s. 32 and liable to be disallowed as business revenue expenses. 2. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 1,69,53,133/- by holding that the Trademark Registration Fees and Patent Registration Fees incurred by the appellant were capital in nature, merely eligible for depreciation u/s. 32 and liable to be disallowed as business revenue expenses." 2.1 It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that both these issues are covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in I.T.A. No. 3140/Ahd/2010 dated 25.05.2012. He drawn our attention to para 3 to 3.12 of the tribunal order which are available on page 6-16 of this tribunal order. Copy of this tribunal order was also submitted. 2.2 Ld. D.R. of the revenue support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. Both the grounds No.1 & 2 of the assessee are allowed. 3. Ground No.3 is as under: "3. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 23,90,72,7887- by holding that the appellant was not entitled to the weighted deduction for expenditure on Scientific Research u/s. 35(2AB) in respect of Clinical Trial and Bio-equivalence Study." 3.1 It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the same Tribunal order in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 and our attention was drawn to para No.4-4.8 of this tribunal order which is available on pages 16-26 of this tribunal order. 3.2 In reply, it was submitted by the Ld. D.R. that the Tribunal order in the case of Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT as reported in 43 SOT 423, is against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. He also submitted a copy of this tribunal order which is available on pages 48-54 of the paper book submitted by the Ld. D.R. He also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT v Claris Lifesciences Ltd. as reported in 326 ITR 251 (Guj.). It was submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition had also been clarified in the Explanation to section 35(2AB). The expenditure should therefore be eligible for weighted deduction. It has also been argued that in case the expenditure is held not allowable the Explanation would lose its relevance. 2.6 We are unable to accept the arguments raised by the Learned AR of the assessee. Under the provisions of section 35(2AB)(1), the expenditure incurred on scientific research on in-house research and development facility is eligible for weighted deduction. It is very clear from the plain reading of the provision that for an expenditure to be eligible for weighted deduction it must be incurred on (i) scientific research and (ii) on in-house research and development facility approved by the prescribed authority. The phraseology used is "on in-house research or development facility" and not "by in-house research and development facility" and therefore only the expenditure incurred on in-house research can be allowed under section 35(2AB) and not any expenditure incurred outside such facility. What the Explanation to section 35(2AB)(1) has clarified is that expenditure incurred on clinical trial in relation to drugs and pharmaceutica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case of Claris Lifesciences Lid. (supra). The said case in our view is distinguishable and not applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. In that case, in-house research and development facility had been approved with effect from 27-2-2001. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order held only the expenditure incurred from 27-2-2001 would be eligible for deduction. On appeal the Tribunal held that the intention of the Legislature was clear that entire expenditure incurred on in-house research and development facility if approved has to be allowed. It was accordingly held that once the approval had been granted the assessee will be entitled for deduction in respect of the entire expenditure but not only the expenditure incurred after 27-2-2001. There was no issue before the Tribunal as to whether expenditure incurred outside the approved in-house R & D facility can be allowed. The Learned AR has also placed reliance on the decision of Tribunal in case of Bharat Bio Tech International (P.) Ltd. (supra). In that case expenditure on clinical trials conducted outside the approved authorities had been claimed for weighted de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al but the expenditure incurred for obtaining approval from any regulatory authority under any Central, State or Provincial Act and also the expenditure incurred for filing an application for a patent under the Patent Act 1970 are stated to be covered within the definition of expenditure on scientific research as per sub-section (1) to Section 35(2AB). Now, the question is as to whether these expenditure such as clinical trial expenditure, expenditure for obtaining approval from any regulatory authority and expenditure for filing application for a patent under the Patent Act 1970 are also required to be incurred in house or whether it is sufficient that these expenses are incurred in relation to the scientific research carried out in house. The tribunal in that case held that clinical drug trial expenditure is to be incurred in-house without examining this aspect for remaining two expenditures & without examining as to whether these three expenses can be incurred in-house or not. When we examine the other expenditure included in the explanation i.e. expenditure for obtaining approval from any regulatory authority and expenditure for an application for a patent under the Patent Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which may be a governmental organization or a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company. When the diversity of required support roles exceeds the resources of the sponsor, a clinical trial is managed by an outsourced partner, such as a contract research organization or a clinical trials unit in the academic sector." 3.6 From the above definition of clinical trial, it comes out that for a clinical drug trial, the first stage is to enroll volunteers and/or patient into small pilot studies and subsequently large scale studies are carried out on patients and such clinical drug trial may be in one country or in multiple countries. Carrying out drug trial is essential for approval of the drug in question to be sold in the public and hence, in our considered opinion, clinical drug trial cannot be carried out inside an in-house research facility i.e. usually the laboratory. Hence, in our considered opinion, this explanation to Section 35(2AB)(1) does not require that these expenses which are included in this explanation are essentially to be incurred inside an in-house research facility because in our considered opinion, it is not possible to incur these expenses inside in-house research ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the action of the A.O. The assessee then filed appeal before the tribunal and the tribunal held that since the facility is approved, the entire expenditures incurred has to be allowed as provided by Section 35AB(2). Against this Tribunal order, appeal was filed by the revenue before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and under these facts, it was held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that the assessee is eligible for weighted deduction in respect of the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee u/s 35AB(2) of the Act. Hence, we find that this judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is in fact in favour of the assessee and not in favour of the revenue. Moreover, the issue involved was different as to whether even if approval is granted by the Ministry of Science & Technology from a particular date, deduction is allowable for the entire expenditure or for only those expenses which are incurred on or after the date of approval. In the present case, the dispute is not such and hence, this judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is not applicable in the present case. We also find that in that case, the dispute was regarding allowab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction u/s 35(2AB)(1). Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal order rendered in the case of Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) does not lay down a binding precedent and, therefore, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee by respectfully following the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07. This ground is also allowed. 4. Ground No.4 is as under: "4. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making a disallowance of Rs. 5,00,37,043/- u/s. 14A." 4.1 It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that the tribunal has restored this matter back to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High court rendered in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT as reported in 328 ITR 81. In this regard, he drawn our attention to para 5.5 on page 33 of the Tribunal order in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07 as per which, this issue was restored back by the tribunal to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision in the light of this judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. He submitted that in the present year also, the matter may be restored back to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of shipping charges and US$2876 on account of suppression in the price of car for claiming it to be second hand car. In this manner, the A.O. worked out the total unexplained investment at US$25,876 and by adopting a conversion rate of Rs. 44.97 per US$, the A.O. worked out addition at Rs. 11,63,644/-. 5.2 It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that there is no suppression in the value of the car because the vehicle was sent to Thailand for conversion for which the concerned party's bill of U$20,800 was not paid till date because the car was having some defects. He further submitted that no evidence could be brought out on record by the Revenue to show that US$20,800 was in fact paid by the assessee. Regarding other two amounts also, it was submitted that these are mere objections without any supporting evidence and hence, no addition on this account is justified. Regarding the payment of custom duty on this car after including cost of conversion etc, it was submitted that irrespective of price paid by the assessee for importing the car or any other item, custom duty has to be paid as per the valuation done by the custom authorities and only because custom duty had been paid on enh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipping charges. Regarding this amount, it is explained that for this payment of shipping charge also, no evidence has been brought on record by the A.O. that this amount was actually paid by the assessee and hence, in our considered opinion, the addition of this amount is also not justified u/s 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961. As per the above discussion, ground No.5 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 6. Now, we consider the allowability of depreciation on this Hummar H2 motorcar. First of all, we would like to observe that the revenue is taking a contradictory stand. When the A. O. has alleged extra payment for this very car, he has made addition in the hands of the assessee company for the alleged unaccounted payment/investment but when the question of depreciation is being decided by the A.O., it is held that the assessee company is not eligible for depreciation on this car because Mr. Pankaj Patel is the owner of this car. Secondly, we also find that reliance has been placed by the Ld. A.R. on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad high court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Varanasi Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 326 IT 182 where, it was held that even if the trucks are in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 and he drawn our attention to para 6-10.13 on pages 34-77 of this tribunal order. As against this, it was submitted by the Ld. D.R. that even if the issue was decided by the tribunal in earlier year in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal can take a different view if it is found that some judicial precedence which were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal in such earlier year or provisions of law or correct interpretation of law came to its knowledge subsequently. He submitted that in this view of the matter, the issue in dispute should be decided on merit afresh. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Madras Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Shriram Transport and Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT as reported in 70 ITD 406. Reliance was also placed on one more decision of the tribunal rendered by Special bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Gold Mine Shares Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 113 ITD 209 (Ahd.) (S.B.). It was submitted that it was held by the Special bench of the Tribunal in that case that when the provisions of statute is not considered, it cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here it is observed by the tribunal that segregation between 80% and 6% was not on account of any evidence through which it can independently be established that the major portion of the profit could be attributed to the assessee company and rest of the profit could only be attributed to the Baddi Unit. In this regard, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that the A.O. has proved the same and in this regard, our attention was drawn to para 9.7, 9.11 and 9.12-9.23 of the assessment order. 7.6 He has also objected to some of other findings of the tribunal in its order in the earlier year and the first objection is this that it is stated by the tribunal in para 10.3 of the earlier year that A.O. is not empowered to disturb the computation of profit. In this regard, it was submitted by him that he A.O. has to compute profit and gain of eligible unit on reasonable basis as he may deem fit as per proviso to Section 80-IA(8). 7.7 He further submitted that it is observed by the Tribunal in Para 10.8 of the tribunal order that if there is no intercorporate transfer then the A.O. has no right to determine the fair market value of such goods or to compute the arms length price of such goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has accepted segregation of profit to find out eligible profit for the purpose of deduction allowable u/s 80-IC but for the reasons given in the later part of this para of the tribunal order it did not accept the stand of the A.O. He further submitted that the reasons enumerated by the tribunal in the order for the assessment year 2006-07 are factually incorrect and are also based on incomplete reading of the provisions of the Act. It was his main submissions that the eligible unit in Baddi unit who has transferred certain goods to the company who is a non eligible entity and therefore, the A.O. invoked the provisions of Section 80-IA (8) and proceeded to find the profit of the eligible unit on reasonable basis as per the provisions of Section 80-IA(8). Ld. D.R. has submitted para-wise comments on the findings of the tribunal in its order for A. Y. 2006-07 on the issue of deduction u/s 80-IC. The same are available on pages 8-15 of the written submissions filed by the Ld. D.R. For the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced below: "Paragraph wise comments on the findings of the ITAT in the order for AY 2006-07, on the issue of deduction u/s 80IC Para/page Findings of ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computation of profit is subject matter of controversy. It is settled position that the AO can disturb the computation of profit while examining the deduction claimed in scrutiny proceedings if the claim is not as per the Act. The P&L account of Baddi unit was prepared for Income-tax purpose for claiming the deduction, as an attachment to form 10CCB. The found that there is a defect in total receipts credited to such P&L account. The defect needs to be removed following the provisions of section 80IA(8), the proviso and the Explanation given there under. 10.4/61 The facts of the case of Rolls Royce PLC v. DDIT 19SOT 42 relied by the AO are different. In that case: there was PE in India, section 9(1) was applied, there was no separate account in India, the word business connection was considered, circular 23 of CBDT was also applied. Rolls Royce case has been later confirmed by the Delhi High court, 339 ITR 147(Del) AO relied on the said case to buttress his argument that 'separation of profits is possible' under the Act for taxation purposes. Distinction made in the order is not correct. In Rolls Royce case, business connection, circular 23 and section 9(1) applied, becau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales of the qualified products. Manufacture and sale of pharmaceuticals as a whole is not the eligible business. In the present case eligible undertaking is Baddi unit and the eligible business is 'manufacture of pharmaceuticals by Baddi Unit'. In other words, it is the profit derived by 'Baddi unit from the manufacture of pharmaceuticals' is only eligible for deduction u/s.80IC. 10.6/65 This section do not suggest that the eligible profit should be computed first by transferring the product at an imaginary sale price to the head office and then the head office should sale the product in the open market. There is no such concept of segregation of profit. Section 80IA(8) lays down that the profits of eligible unit have to be found out strictly as the word used is "derived from" which has a restricted meaning. Pandian Chemicals 262 ITR 278 (SC) Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC) Section lays down that the profits of eligible units have to be arrived taking the market value whenever there is transfer of goods or services from eligible business unit to non eligible business. Section has defined the 'market value' as prevention against the tax arbitrage. 10.7/65 The Ld.AO has suggest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or the marketing unit and thereupon the sales were executed by the head office to the open market. Once it was not so, then the fixation of market value of such good is out of the ambits of this section. Transfer does not always mean by 'sale'. Transfer can be without sale. When the goods are transferred from one unit of the assessee to another unit, it may be just a branch transfer. When there is such transfer as mentioned, Act lays down that the market value of such goods has to be taken as on that date. 10.8/67 If there is no inter-corporate transfer, then the AO has no right to determine the fair market value of such goods or to compute the arm's length price of such goods. Section 80IA(8) deals with a situation of transfer from one unit to other unit of the same assessee. It does not talk of inter-corporate transfer. Therefore there need not be an 'intercorporate' transfer to apply 80IA(8). 10.8/66 Though the section 80IA(8) has its own importance, but the area under which this section operates is that where one eligible business is transferred to any other business... .. The matter we are dealing is not the case where business as a whole is transferred. This is a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see and accepted by the revenue for 30 years could not be treated as sanctioned by law and was not acceptable for tbe purpose of computation of taxable income. B.S.C. (footwear Ltd. v. Ridgway (Inspector of Taxes) [1972] 83 ITR 26s). Matter of taxability cannot be decided on the basis of entries which the assessee may choose to make in his accounts, but has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Income tax Act. CIT v. Mogul Line Ltd 46 ITR 590 (Bom) and Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd 116 ITR 1 (SC) 10.9/68 And why at all this complex working of computation to be adopted by the assessee when a very simple method is adopted that on one side of the P&L A/c the production cost plus overheads were debited and on the other side of the P&L A/c sale price was credited to computed the profit. Because : (1) The method of accounting followed by the assessee is giving wrong profits of the eligible business. (2) The method of working is against the provisions of section 80IA(8). Accounting practice cannot override section 56 or any other provision of the Act. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC) If the Act requires a method to be adopted for accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80IA(8) and (2) it is possible as the eligible unit has to be deemed as separated unit for the deduction purposes. The conclusion of the ITAT that the assessee has computed the profit of the Baddi Unit on the basis of the well accepted principle of accountancy is not correct under the law laid down by Supreme Court. Accounting practice cannot override section 56 or any other provision of the Act. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC) CIT v. Mogul Line Ltd 46 ITR 590 (Bom) Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd 116 ITR 1 (SC) It may be seen from the above that the Hon'ble Tribunal has (1) not considered certain facts of the case, (2) some of the facts were taken wrongly on record for the purpose of the case and (3) Provisions of section 80-IA(8) were not fully applied and (4) Proviso placed under section 80-IA(8) was not at all considered or applied which is vital to the issue. Non consideration of the proviso to section 80-IA(8) resulted in Hon'ble ITAT concluding that there is no provision in the Act which empower the AO to disturb the computation of profit made by the assessee. Hon'ble ITAT has also not considered the Supreme Court laid law and concluded tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther profit of 6.2% on overall basis. On this basis, it is held that only additional 6.2% profit had been earned due to this unit at Baddi and therefore, the profit derived form Baddi unit was worked out to 6.2% on total turnover of Baddi unit and in this manner, he has worked out deduction allowable to the assessee u/s 80-IC in respect of Baddi unit at Rs. 14,44,65,492/-. 7.13 Now, we examine the legal provisions in this regard and hence, we reproduce provisions of section 80-IC, which are as under: "80-IC. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub-section (2), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains, as specified in sub-section (3). (2) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise,-- (a) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing, not being any article or thing specified in the Thirteenth Schedule, or which manufactures or produces any article or thing, not being any article or thing s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) or sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of clause (b), of sub-section (2), one hundred per cent of such profits and gains for ten assessment years commencing with the initial assessment year; (ii) in the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (b), of sub-section (2), one hundred per cent of such profits and gains for five assessment years commencing with the initial assessment year and thereafter, twenty-five per cent (or thirty per cent where the assessee is a company) of the profits and gains. (4) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise which fulfils all the following conditions, namely:-- (i) it is not formed by splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence : Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of an undertaking which is formed as a result of the re-establishment., reconstruction or revival by the assessee of the business of any such undertaking as is referred to in section 33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (ii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura; (viii) "Software Technology Park" means any park set up in accordance with the Software Technology Park Scheme notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry; (ix) "Substantial expansion" means increase in the investment in the plant and machinery by at least fifty per cent of the book value of plant and machinery (before taking depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken; (x) "Theme Park" means such parks, which the Board, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government.] 7.14 As per sub-section (d) of Section 80-IC of the Income tax Act, 1961 as reproduced above, sub-section (5) and sub-sections 7-12 of Section 80-IA are also applicable in the present case. The A.O. has invoked the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IA of the Income tax Act, 1961 and therefore, we reproduce the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IA along with its proviso which are as under: "(8) Where any goods [or serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 80-IA, it is necessary for the A.O. to establish that some goods or services have been transferred by the eligible unit to some other unit of the assessee or by some other unit of the assessee to the eligible unit and then he has to further establish that for recording such transfer, the value adopted for recoding in the books is not as per market value of such goods or services and then he has to establish that there is exceptional difficulty in computation of profit of eligible unit as provided in sub-section (8) of Section 80-IA and then only he can proceed to compute the profits of eligible unit on a reasonable basis as he may deem fit. Even in such circumstances, the basis adopted by the A.O. should be reasonable basis. 7.16 Hence, first, we examine as to whether the basis adopted by the A.O. is permissible or not. The A.O. has proceeded on this basis that since the assessee company was earning around 80% profit by purchasing the goods and selling them, only the additional profit earned by the assessee after putting the manufacturing at Baddi unit could only be stated to be the profit of Baddi unit which is an eligible unit and for doing this exercise, he has not given a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the profits as per the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 80IA by adopting fair market value of the goods so transferred and therefore, the A.O. has to adopt computation of such profit and gains of Baddi unit on reasonable basis. Lastly, the basis adopted by the A.O. has to be reasonable basis and in the facts of the present case, it is not so in our opinion. 7.17 In the absence of any transfer of goods by Baddi unit to any unit of the assessee company, the provisions of section 80-IA(8) are not applicable and there is no occasion for the A.O. to compute the profits of Baddi unit on reasonable basis. Secondly, no price had been adopted by Baddi unit to record for any transfer of goods by it to some other unit of the assessee company and hence, there is no occasion to examine as to whether such price adopted by the Baddi unit is as per the market value of such goods or not. Assuming that that there is transfer of goods by Baddi Unit, the A.O. can find out the market value of goods on the date of transfer and can adopt the same to work out profit of Baddi Unit. The best indicator of market value on date of transfer is actual sale price at which the goods are sold by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le unit. 7.20 The next instance could be that on the date of sale of goods to an outside buyer, the rate of dollar was Rs. 40 per dollar but at the time when the remittance was received in India and converted into rupees, the dollar price rose to Rs. 50/dollar and hence, such additional profit on account of increase in price of dollar is not the profit of eligible unit but this profit is on account of increase in exchange rate and therefore, to this extent, the profit is not eligible for deduction u/s 80-IC or 80-IB. 7.21 There may be numerous other instances where the profit of eligible unit has to be bifurcated if the stand of the A.O. is approved. In our considered opinion, the stand of the A.O. cannot be approved because it is not a reasonable basis for computation of profit of an eligible unit. In our considered opinion, the profit has to be computed on the basis of selling price (-) cost of goods produced along with various overheads and only where there is some inter unit transfer of goods or service between various units of the same assessee, then it has to be ensured that recording of such transfer of goods or services should be at market value of such goods or services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee by the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait as reported in 41 SOT 290 (Mum.). He further submitted a copy of this judgement which is available on page 34-38 of the paper book submitted by the assessee. 9.2 Ld. D.R. supported the order of authorities below but it could not be pointed out as to how, this issue is not covered in favour of the assessee by this decision of Special bench of the Tribunal cited by the Ld. A.R.. Hence, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee by respectfully followings the decision of Special bench of the Tribunal cited by the Ld. A.R. This ground is allowed. 10. Ground No.12 is as under: "12. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 10,81,1437- as upward adjustment on international transactions under the provisions relating to Transfer Pricing." 10.1 It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that in assessment year 2006-07, similar issue was decided by the tribunal and the matter was sent back by the Tribunal to the file of the A.O. to examine correctness of the computation of the assessee so that further relief could be granted to the assessee. He submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
