Case Law Details
Kodak India Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai), ITA No. 7349/Mum/2012, Date of Pronouncement : 30-04-2013
It is undisputed that the transaction involve two domestic companies, who are individual and independent subsidiaries of their own and independent holding companies. This is also not in dispute that neither of the holding companies could be called the AE of the other contracting party. This is also not in dispute that, there is any transaction, involving a non resident company.
The case as developed by the TPO/DRP and the DR is that despite the fact that there is no foreign entity involved with an AE who is a non-resident but provisions of section 92B(2) can deem a transaction to be an international transaction and the TP provisions could consequentially be applied, has to examined by examining the definitions of:
Associated Enterprises
International Transaction
Since the entire foundation is on 92B(2), we must examine interpretation made by the DR, that the section talks of “a transaction” and not “an international transaction”, hence the expression in sub section (1) has to be read independently in sub section (2), cannot be accepted. We are dealing in Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the heading of the relevant provisions, which is being examined fall within the heading “Meaning of International Transaction” and even in the relevant sub section, i.e. 92B(2), prescribes, “……the transaction between such other person and the associated enterprise, … . “. In our opinion, first, there has to be an “AR”, with whom there exists an international transaction, only then it could be examined as to whether the international transaction with the “such other person” exists or not.
In the instant case there are two foreign companies and two Indian domestic companies. As admitted by both the sides the two foreign companies have independent agreement and the Indian domestic companies have independent agreement for sale of a segment of business.
Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, subscribes the computation of income from international transaction having regard to arm’s length price. Section 92(1) begins with the expression, “Any income arising from an international transaction……“. It means that Chapter X gets its jurisdiction, if there is an international transaction, between AEs. In the instant case, the transactions as entered into by the holding foreign companies and subsidiary Indian companies are independent of each other:
(FC means Foreign Company and IC means Indian Company)
It is an undisputed fact that A is AE of C and B of is AE of D. To colour the transaction as international transaction, the DR could not establish that either C had any AE relation with B or D had any AE relation with A. It also seems that the TPO/AO did not peruse the contract entered into by the holding companies, wherein the effects of the transaction on its subsidiaries had been recited.
When we read the deeming provision of section 92B(2), we cannot slip out of the definition of international transaction, that too, when the deeming provision, itself says, “for the purposes of sub section (1)”. As observed by their Lordships, in the case of K.P. Varghese (supra), “the Parliament would have enacted that provision as a separate section and not pitchforked it into section 52 with a total stranger under an appropriate marginal note”. The similar course could have been adopted by the legislature to place section 92B(2), independently, not under the heading of international transaction. Another important observation has to be made in this context is that the legislatures committed the deeming provision alongside section 92B(1) by using the expression, “for the purposes of sub-section (1)”.
To come within the purview of section 92(1), 92A(1) the transaction must go through the needle hole definition provided in section 92B(1). This, transaction, cannot be presumed to be international transaction, even when the revenue authorities have tried to include it as the deemed transactions, as the case made out by the TPO/AO in the instant case.
In these circumstances, we hold that there was no international element involved in the sale of imaging segment by the assessee of its business to Carestream Health Ltd. and hold it was a purely a domestic transaction.
AO can invoke Rule 8D only when he records satisfaction in regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee
As observed above, Rule 8D cannot be invoked directly and mechanically, i.e., without giving a detailed and speaking reasons. Bald statement, made by the AO that he has referred to the accounts, does not give him an automatic jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D. Disallowance, made on such basis is not permissible. In order to give quietus to the impugned issue, where no expenditure has been attributed to wards the exempt income by the assessee, we, restore the issue of disallowance to the AO for computing the disallowance in accordance with the provisions of section 14A(2), if at all, by giving detailed reasoning and speaking order, needless to say that the AO shall give adequate and reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the DRP and direct the AO to compute the disallowance in accordance with the provisions of section 14A(2), as per our observations in the above para.
