Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ITO v. Galaxy Saws P. Ltd. (ITA No.3747/M/2010) (Judgement Date: 11 March 2011, Assessment Year: 2005-06) held that revaluation reserve not routed through Profit & Loss Account but directly transferred to balance sheet could not be added to net profit while computing the book profit for the purpose of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). Further, the Tribunal reiterated that principle that once the accounts have been prepared as per the provisions Schedule VI of the Companies Act and adopted at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the company, the net profit disclosed in such accounts cannot be tinkered with by the Assessing Officer (AO) while computing the book profit.
The Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal [“The Tribunal”] recently pronounced its ruling in the case of Clear Plus India Private Limited v. DCIT [ITA NO. 3944/DEL/2010], wherein it upheld the transfer pricing methodology adopted by the taxpayer to benchmark its export sale by the application of internal comparable uncontrolled price [“CUP”] method, adopting its associated enterprise [“AE”] as the tested party. The revenue’s contention to use Transactional Net Margin Method [“TNMM”] was rejected as in view of the Tribunal minor aberrations in the application of CUP method do not warrant its abandonment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“The Tribunal”), Delhi Bench recently pronounced its ruling in the case of ACIT v. M/s NIT Limited (Appeal no. -2011-TII-1 6-I TA T-DEL-TP or ITA No.1844 & 1871/Del./2009) on various transfer pricing issues. The most important issue dealt by the Tribunal was in respect of details submitted before the Tribunal that were not available in the public domain at the time of assessment and first appellate proceedings. The Tribunal held that since these documents were essential for determining arm’s length price of the relevant international transactions, the same need to be admitted for consideration.
The Mumbai Bench ‘L’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), on 23 February 2011, pronounced its ruling in the case ACIT vs. M/s. NGC Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, ITA No. 5307/M/2008. The Taxpayer’s position under appeal filed by the Department with the Tribunal related to the use of independent comparables under TNMM for justifying the arm’s length nature since the same was accepted by the AO for a subsequent year. The AO argued that the comparables were not acceptable since they were different from functional and operational point of view. The Tribunal, ruled that the most appropriate comparison, under the facts and circumstances of the case, would be between the results achieved by the Taxpayer for the relevant assessment year and those earned by comparable uncontrolled entities during the corresponding period (provided such data is available for comparables), particularly where the set of comparable companies as well as the methodology have already been agreed to by the Department in the subsequent years.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) recently pronounced its ruling in the case of M/s Tecnimount ICB Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Mumbai, ITA No. 7098/Mum/2010, on transfer pricing issues arising from equipment supplied and technical services rendered by the Taxpayer to its Associated enterprises (AEs). The Tribunal ruled in favour of the Taxpayer stating that segmental accounts should be considered for the calculation of the Profit Level Indicator (PLI).
Assessee has an option when there is arithmetical mean involved while computing the ‘arm’s length price’ and it happens only if more than one price is determined by the most appropriate method. The First Proviso becomes operational where more than one comparable price is determined. The assessee at his option can make claim of deduction out of the arithmetic mean not exceeding 5%.
Depreciation is admittedly in the nature of allowance and, therefore, it cannot be subject matter of disallowance under section 14A, which must remain confined to expenditure incurred by the assessee. Similarly, as far as deduction under section 80D is concerned, it cannot be subject matter of disallowance under section 14A either. The deduction under section 80D is not admissible because it is an expenditure for the purpose of earning an income but because, by virtue of specific provision under section 80D, payment of premium of health insurance, which is inherently personal expenses of the assessee, is admissible as deduction. This deduction cannot, therefore, be subject matter of disallowance under section 14A, which, as we have noted earlier, is confined to expenditure incurred for the purpose of an income which is not includible in total income of the assessee.
In the case of a trader where shares are held as stock-in-trade no part of interest on borrowed funds can be disallowed u/s 14A as incurred in relation to Dividend income. The interest on borrowed funds used for trading activity is an allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and the same cannot be treated as the expenditure for earning the dividend income which is incidental to the trading activity.
Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT (I.T.A. No.919/Del/2009) (ITAT Delhi)- Interest income is to be excluded from operating revenue for computing the net profit from operating activity unless such interest income has nexus with the international transaction. Under the captive service and cost plus model, if an expense has a direct link with the international transaction, the same should form part of total cost i.e. operating costs. The onus is on the taxpayer to maintain robust documentation for availing necessary economic and risk adjustments. The option of +/- 5 % is available only to the taxpayer when he is computing the ALP and not when the AO/TPO is computing the ALP
The OECD guidelines are not of binding nature and even the Proviso to Rule 10B (4) provides that any subsequent year data cannot be considered. The contemporaneous data of relevant financial year is to be used for making the comparable analysis for arriving at the ALP unless it is proved otherwise
