Inclusion of Comparables, DEPB Benefits, and Depreciation in Profit Margin Calculation

The Tribunal allowed the inclusion of Santogen Exports Ltd. and Vanasthali Textiles as comparables, considered DEPB benefits in turnover for profit margins, and recognized depreciation as an operating expense. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, while the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The decision was issued on 05/02/2014.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment of Arm's Length Price (ALP) using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method versus the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
2. Inclusion of depreciation as an operating expense.
3. Inclusion of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) benefits in operating income.
4. Exclusion of certain comparables (Santogen Exports Ltd. and Vanasthali Textiles Industries).
5. Levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6. Premature initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adjustment of Arm's Length Price (ALP) using CUP vs. TNMM:
The assessee contended that the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards ALP based on the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) order were incorrect and invalid. The assessee had consistently followed the CUP method, which was previously accepted by the AO/TPO. However, the TPO rejected the CUP method, arguing that the quality and styling of products sold to different countries were not the same, and applied the TNMM instead. The CIT(A) upheld the TPO's decision to apply TNMM but allowed partial relief to the assessee by including depreciation as an operating expense and DEPB benefits in operating income.

2. Inclusion of Depreciation as an Operating Expense:
The TPO excluded depreciation from operating expenses while computing the margin of the assessee and comparables. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that depreciation should be considered an operating expense, especially for a manufacturing entity. This view was upheld by the Tribunal, agreeing that net profit should be computed in accordance with accepted norms, and depreciation is a legitimate operating cost.

3. Inclusion of DEPB Benefits in Operating Income:
The assessee argued that DEPB benefits should be included in the profits while computing margins. The CIT(A) agreed, stating that DEPB should be considered as operational receipts. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing previous orders where DEPB benefits were included in the turnover for working out profit margins, ensuring a like-to-like comparison.

4. Exclusion of Certain Comparables:
The TPO excluded Santogen Exports Ltd. and Vanasthali Textiles Industries from the list of comparables due to their losses in the year under consideration. The assessee argued that these comparables were included in the previous year and should not be excluded solely based on one year's performance. The CIT(A) initially upheld the TPO's exclusion, but the Tribunal found no justifiable reason for excluding these comparables, noting that they were not consistent loss-making companies.

5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The CIT(A) held that the levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is mandatory. The assessee denied liability for such interest, but this issue was not argued further before the Tribunal and thus was not addressed in detail.

6. Premature Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The CIT(A) held that the ground disputing the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was premature. The assessee denied liability for such penalties, but this issue was also not argued further before the Tribunal and thus was not addressed in detail.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's findings were as follows:
1. Santogen Exports Ltd. and Vanasthali Textiles should be included in the list of comparables.
2. DEPB benefits should be considered part of the turnover for working out profit margins.
3. Depreciation should be considered an operating expense while computing the margin of the assessee and comparables.

The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 05/02/2014.

---