Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Bangalore Allows Warranty Provision, Remands Transfer Pricing Adjustments

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 10223
Case Name
Continental Automotive Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Appeal Number
Premium Access
Date of Judgement/Order
Premium Access
Related Assessment Year
2014-15
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

Continental Automotive Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)

The appeal arose from the final assessment order dated 30.11.2018 passed under Sections 143(3) read with 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary of Continental Automotive GmbH, Germany, was engaged in manufacturing automotive electronic components, trading imported products, and rendering software development services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The appeal primarily concerned transfer pricing adjustments in the manufacturing and software development service segments, along with disallowance of warranty provision, annual licence fees, and non-set-off of brought forward losses.

The TPO initially proposed transfer pricing adjustments exceeding Rs.155.70 crore. After the DRP’s directions, the final adjustment was recomputed at Rs.143.30 crore. The manufacturing segment adjustment was ultimately recomputed at Rs.117.35 crore, while the software development services adjustment remained Rs.25.95 crore. Apart from transfer pricing issues, disputes also arose regarding disallowance of warranty provision of Rs.3.21 crore, annual licence fees of Rs.28 crore, and non-set-off of brought forward losses exceeding Rs.232.54 crore.

Manufacturing Segment Transfer Pricing

The assessee had adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with Operating Profit to Operating Cost as the Profit Level Indicator. It claimed adjustments for:

  • under-utilisation of capacity,
  • customs duty,
  • foreign exchange fluctuation,
  • depreciation,
  • selection of comparable companies, and
  • restriction of adjustment only to international transactions with AEs.

The TPO rejected the adjustments and determined the arm’s length margin using a different cost base and expanded list of comparables. The assessee also contended that transfer pricing adjustment should be confined only to transactions with AEs rather than the entire manufacturing segment.

Want to Read the Complete Judgment?

You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.

Read on with Premium
Goes straight to payment. GST invoice included.

One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: Graduate, CA in Job / Business, DD
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 23,880

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.