Tribunal partially allows appeal, deletes transfer pricing adjustment and bad debts disallowance. Assessment order validity issue dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,55,35,432 and the disallowance of bad debts/business loss of Rs. 28,76,102. The issue concerning the validity of the assessment order against a non-existent entity was treated as dismissed, and the ground related to the non-granting of credit for taxes deducted at source was not pursued.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment order against a non-existent entity.
2. Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,55,35,432.
3. Disallowance of bad debts/business loss of Rs. 28,76,102.
4. Non-granting of credit for taxes deducted at source amounting to Rs. 27,55,636 (not pressed).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment Order Against a Non-Existent Entity:
The assessee argued that the assessment order against Federal Express India Private Limited was invalid as the entity had merged with the appellant. This issue was not adjudicated upon and was treated as dismissed.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs. 1,55,35,432:
The main issue was the transfer pricing adjustment related to the mark-up earned by the appellant on payments made to third-party service providers for customs clearance of high-value packages. The appellant coordinated these services through Jeena & Co. due to the lack of a requisite license. The appellant charged a 9% mark-up on the coordination services, but the TPO included the entire payment to Jeena in the cost base, which led to a transfer pricing adjustment.

The appellant argued that the payment to Jeena was a "pass-through cost" and should not be included in the cost base for applying the mark-up. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in 'Li and Fung India Pvt Ltd V/s CIT,' which held that the cost incurred by third parties should not be included in the cost base for determining the arm's length price (ALP). The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's role was limited to coordinating services, and the payment to Jeena was reimbursed by the AE, making it a pass-through cost. Therefore, the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted.

3. Disallowance of Bad Debts/Business Loss of Rs. 28,76,102:
The assessee claimed a deduction for bad debts written off, which was disallowed by the AO on the grounds that the assessee did not maintain records of individual clients and did not prove that the debts had become bad. The Tribunal noted that the amounts written off were towards payments of duties and taxes made on behalf of clients, which were subsequently unrecoverable. The Tribunal held that these amounts should be allowed as bad debts or alternatively as business loss, citing the Bombay High Court's decisions in 'Harshad J Choksi V/s CIT' and 'CIT V/s Shreyas S Morakhia.' Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 28,76,102 was deleted.

4. Non-Granting of Credit for Taxes Deducted at Source:
The assessee did not press this ground, and it was treated as dismissed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal deleting the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,55,35,432 and the disallowance of bad debts/business loss of Rs. 28,76,102. The issue regarding the validity of the assessment order against a non-existent entity was treated as dismissed, and the ground related to the non-granting of credit for taxes deducted at source was not pressed.

---