We have heard the rival contentions. and perused the material on record as no controverting material has been brought on record by the revenue as to why the deduction u/s.80-IC be denied to the assessee merely because the auditor in a report u/s.44AB in Col. deduction under Chapter VIIA has observed NIL. This being a technical non-disclosure appropriately was supported by the auditor by claiming deduction u/s.80-IC which he had certified therefore cannot be subjected to denial to the assessee being purely of technical nature. We may as a passing reference also mention that the case law cited regarding refund of excise duty was held in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court for deduction u/s.80-IC.
In this case, assessee was carrying on business of conversion of Jumbo Rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in desired sizes. It claimed deduction under secs. 80-HH and 80-I as well as investment allowance under sec. 32AB. The controversy arose whether conversion of jumbo rolls into small sizes amounts to manufacture or production, eligible for deduction under sec. 32AB or deduction under sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961/ Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that this activity amounts to manufacture or production.
The assessee has explained before us the hierarchy of Sacred Heart Congregation viz., Generalate, Province, Region and Convents. There is no dispute that the applicant herein is a Convent. It was further submitted that the constitution (meaning ‘bye laws’) is the same for all the four hierarchies stated above. It was further submitted that Chapter X of the constitution, referred above, is the authority of services given to the convents. We have gone through the Chapter X of the constitution referred above. We notice that the Chapter X discusses about the formation of new houses, local communities, colonial house, local supervisor, local assembly, local council, service centres etc., and the mode of regulation of the same. In clause 278, which is prescribed under the head “Colonial House”, it is stated as under:-
Government only intended to restrict the investment in a particular financial year and accordingly has fixed the limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as permissible limit in a particular financial year. The Government did not intend to restrict the maximum amount of exemption permissible under Section 54EC.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited. The reopening of assessments in the instant case is decidedly before the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, so that the first proviso to s. 147 is not applicable.
Regarding disallowance of foreign travelling expenses, it is seen that on similar circumstances and facts, the Assessing Officer has disallowed 4% of the expenditure claimed which was based on ratio of such expenses with export sales. Thus, such a view taken by the Assessing Officer cannot be disturbed without any difference in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Coming to the issue regarding ICC International, we find that assessee has demonstrated, as noted earlier, that it had earned super profits during the year because of increase in supply on account of government scheme. We find that TPO has considered the assessee’s objection regarding exclusion of high margin comparables in para 8.7 of his order and the DRP in para 7.1. They have merely, inter alia, observed that comparables cannot be rejected simply because they are loss or high profit making comparables. However, they have not considered that if certain extraordinary factors materially affected the profit in a particular year then that aspects had to be taken into consideration and due adjustment was required to be made to the net profit margin for brining the comparable on the same platform at which the assessee was performing its functions.
The proposition that gain on foreign exchange if it relates to the business of the assessee is part and parcel of operating income is well established by the afore-mentioned decisions of the coordinate benches. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the gain made by the assessee on fluctuation of foreign exchange was not on account of business transactions of the assessee. In absence of any such material, following the afore-mentioned decisions of the Tribunal, it has to be held that the foreign exchange gain of the assessee is to be considered as part and parcel of the profit of the assessee and therefore should be included for the purpose of computing the profit margin of the assessee.
In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Smt.Baljinder Kaur [2009] 29 SOT 9 (URO), wherein it has been held that it is a well settled proposition that the concept of ‘fair market value’ envisages existence of hypothetical seller and hypothetical buyer, in a hypothetical market. Therefore, determination of fair market value of capital asset, as on 1.4.1981, would involve a judgement of estimation, based on relevant factors.
The first comparable taken by the TPO is CRISL Research and Information Services Ltd. The said comparable is common as the assessee has also selected the same in its original TP study. Though CRISL Ltd is basically a rating agency; however, since the segment results relating to the research activity has been taken into consideration; therefore, the other activity being rating agency does not effect the comparability solely because of this fact. The ld Sr counsel for the assessee has pointed out that about 60% of the income of the CRISL Ltd is from the related party transactions. This is a material fact that has to be considered for the purpose of selecting the uncontrolled comparable transactions as per sec. 92C(1) r.w.r 10B(1)(e) for the purpose of determination of ALP.
