9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y.2007-08 and 2004-05 and also in the subsequent year, no disallowance has been made by the AO, therefore, the addition on account of disallowance of consultancy charges is deleted.
TP adjustment - purchases of equipment which was on account of purchases of following laboratory equipment by the assessee from its AE - HELD THAT:- Here in this case the adjustment has been made on the ground that the bills produced by the assessee were not for the equipment purchases whereas the assessee has produced all those bills before the ld. DRP and also before the ld. TPO as noted above. Once these bills have been produced there cannot be any doubt for the purchases and accordingly, no adjustment should have been made on this issue. Accordingly, the addition adjustment made by the ld. TPO is deleted. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arking profitability. The TPO altered the comparables-set selected by the Assessee and reworked the arm's length OP/OC margin to 20.08% and held that the difference between 5% and 20.08% worked out to a differential profit Rs. 7.41 cr and accordingly recommended an adjustment of Rs. 7.41 cr. In addition, the TPO held that the Assessee ought to have received a 50% share in the royalty income earned by Unilever Plc. from the intellectual property developed with the assistance of the services provided by the Assessee. The TPO was informed that Unilever Plc. (the AE) has earned Rs. 3010 Cr as royalty. The TPO on the basis of the employees engaged by the Assessee to the overall employees attributed Rs. 90.3 cr. to the assessees (3010*180/6000) and held that 50% of the thereof, i.e. Rs. 45 cr. share of royalty that should have been shared by the AE (Unilever Plc.) with the assessee with respect to the R&D services rendered by the assessee. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) did not entirely agree with the adjustment made by the TPO to R&D Services segment. The ld.DRP held that the TPO had erred in not considering the actual profit earned by the Assessee to arrive at its OP/OC margin, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use the Assessee's OP/OC margin was higher than 16.7% as agreed under BAPA, whereas for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 the Assessee's OP/OC there was an adjustment agreed to, as the margin being lower than 16.7%, hence addition was agreed to. Accordingly, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the transfer pricing grounds raised in its appeal vide order sheet entry dated 21/12/2023. Since OP/OC margin for R & D segment for A.Y.2010-11 was well over 16.7% as agreed in BAPA and thereafter, under the MAP proceedings passed by ld. AO vide order dated 25/04/2014, the copy of this has been placed before us. The copy of order giving effect to the MAP resolution has also been filed. Since the transfer pricing issues which were raised have been settled under BAPA and MAP proceedings, accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 8. In so far as the ground No.1 to 6 raised by the assessee, a letter dated 06/11/2023 has been filed seeking leave of this Tribunal to withdraw the grounds in compliance with Rule 44G and give a finality to the MAP resolution, accordingly, 1-6 of the assessee is allowed to be withdrawn. 9. In assessee's appeal in so far as ground Nos. 7-11 in rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2015 dated 13/12/2017. Further, it has been pointed out that from A.Y.2011-12 onwards payment to consultancy / institutions for consultancy services are hereby allowed by the ld. AO himself. 12. We find that this issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y.2007-08 in ITA No.2795/Mum/2015 wherein earlier Tribunal order for A.Y.2004-05 has been followed. Before us it has been brought on record that in the earlier hearings before the Tribunal assessee had filed a certificate dated 24/06/2024 confirming that no disallowance with respect to consultancy charges paid has been made for the A.Y.2011-12 to 2019-20. Thus, in view of the fact that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y.2007-08 and 2004-05 and also in the subsequent year, no disallowance has been made by the AO, therefore, the addition on account of disallowance of consultancy charges is deleted. In the result, grounds Nos. 12 to 17 are allowed. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and assessee's appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above. ITA No.7438/Mum/2018 13. The aforesaid appeal has been filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. DRP. a. Fabric Flow Cell 1. Copy of the Purchase Order ("PO") bearing Order No.DO6009651. ii Copy of the Invoice dated 10.12.2013 bearing no. D961002306 for Order No. DO6009651. iii. Requisition raised by the Appellant on 19.02.2014 with Standard Chartered bank for payment of GBP 38,229. iv. Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA for subsequent year, i.e. FY 2014-15 capitalising Fabric Flow Cell since the equipment was put to use in the subsequent year. b. Softness Meter i. Copy of the purchase order bearing Order No.DO5017393 for 2 Softness Meters. ii. Copy of the 2 Invoices dated 13.06.2013 of GBP 3970 each bearing no.180463 and 180465 for Order No.DO5017393-2 iii. Requisitions raised by the Appellant on 2.12.2013 with Standard Chartered bank for payment of GBP 3970 each iv. Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA for year under consideration, i.e. FY 2013-14 capitalising Softness Meter. 19. All these documents have been filed in separate Exhibit alongwith copies of invoices, purchase order and tax audit report for each of the equipment for the fabric flow and softness meter. 20. From the perusal of these documents which were also filed before the ld. TPO, it would be incorrect on part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
