2012 (11) TMI 1128 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal limits Transfer Pricing Adjustment, directs re-examination of disallowance. Revenue appeal dismissed.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Versus Firestone International (P) Ltd,

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Versus Firestone International (P) Ltd, - TMI Issues Involved:1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment2. Allocation of Expenses3. Disallowance under Section 14ADetailed Analysis:1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:The primary issue under this heading is the adjustment made by the AO based on the TPO's report, which initially added Rs. 1,20,84,042/- to the assessee's income. The CIT (A) reduced this adjustment to Rs. 8,39,245/-, limiting it to transactions with Associated Enterprises (AE). The Revenue contested this reduction, arguing that the adjustment should be made on the total transactions at the entity level, as per the TNMM analysis.The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, referencing multiple ITAT decisions that support the adjustment being limited to international transactions with AE only. It was noted that applying the adjustment to the entire turnover would inappropriately inflate the profits from non-AE transactions, which is not aligned with the Transfer Pricing provisions.The assessee also argued for the application of the safe harbor provision of +/- 5%. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the difference in the arm's length price (ALP) was within the safe harbor range of 5%, thus negating the need for any addition under Transfer Pricing provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the sustained addition of Rs. 8,39,245/-.2. Allocation of Expenses:The AO reallocated various expenses between the diamond and jewellery units, using a sales ratio of 76:24, leading to a disallowance of Rs. 50,01,097/-. The CIT (A) partially upheld this reallocation, specifically for communication, conveyance, vehicle expenses, miscellaneous expenses, and audit fees, while accepting the assessee's allocation for travelling expenses and deleting the reallocation of donations.The Tribunal reviewed the CIT (A)'s findings:- Travelling Expenses: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A) that the allocation of Rs. 50,14,858/- to the jewellery unit was reasonable.- Communication and Conveyance Expenses: The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to allocate these expenses based on the sales ratio, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for a different allocation.- Miscellaneous Expenses: The Tribunal supported the CIT (A)'s partial reallocation after excluding specific charges related to the diamond unit.- Audit Fees: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A) that the audit fees should be allocated proportionately, as both units were audited separately.3. Disallowance under Section 14A:The assessee raised the issue of disallowance under Section 14A, which was not previously contested before the CIT (A). The Tribunal admitted this as an additional ground and noted that the AO had disallowed Rs. 7,73,425/- based on Rule 8D, which was not applicable for the assessment year in question.The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the disallowance, considering whether the investments were made from own funds or borrowed funds and to determine the reasonableness of the expenditure as per the principles established by the Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination and determination.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection for statistical purposes, directing the deletion of the Transfer Pricing addition and remanding the Section 14A disallowance issue back to the AO for re-evaluation. The allocation of expenses was largely upheld as determined by the CIT (A).