TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether DEPB receipt was to be excluded in full for computing deduction under Section 80HHC, (ii) whether receipts on account of sample design and development charges formed part of export turnover and business income, (iii) whether additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) was allowable on the basis of additional evidence filed in appeal, and (iv) whether the transfer pricing addition on account of royalty payment at arm's length price was sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether DEPB receipt was to be excluded in full for computing deduction under Section 80HHC.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of the amended provisions of Section 80HHC read with Section 28(iiid) and the third proviso to Section 80HHC(3). The assessee's entitlement was examined in the light of the earlier order in its own case and the ruling in Topman Exports, under which the face value of DEPB is not to be treated as the same as the profit on transfer of DEPB, and only the profit element on sale is relevant for the exclusion mechanism under the section.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether receipts on account of sample design and development charges formed part of export turnover and business income.
Analysis: The receipts arose from sample design and development activity connected with the assessee's export business. The Tribunal treated the receipts as integral to the export operations and held that they did not fall within the class of incidental receipts contemplated by Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. The earlier decision in the assessee's own case and the CBDT circular explaining the object of the provision supported exclusion only of receipts of a similar incidental nature to brokerage, commission, interest, rent or charges.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) was allowable on the basis of additional evidence filed in appeal.
Analysis: The assessee had not furnished the supporting form with the return, but the claim was raised before the appellate authority with additional evidence. The appellate authority's powers being coterminous with those of the Assessing Officer, and no adverse material emerging from the remand process, the claim was held to be capable of verification and allowance in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iv): Whether the transfer pricing addition on account of royalty payment at arm's length price was sustainable.
Analysis: The royalty was paid under a licensing arrangement for use of designs, know-how, trade names and trademarks, and it was found to be embedded in the sale price of the finished goods. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and applied the consistency principle, noting that the royalty payment had already been accepted as revenue in nature and that the assessee's operating margins remained better than those of comparables. On those facts, the ALP adjustment at nil was not justified.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal failed on all substantial grounds and the additions and disallowances deleted or directed to be verified by the first appellate authority were sustained in the assessee's favour.
Ratio Decidendi: For Section 80HHC, DEPB and similar export incentive receipts must be dealt with according to the statutory distinction between face value and profit element, incidental receipts are excluded only if they are of the nature contemplated by Explanation (baa), and a royalty payment under a genuine licensing arrangement cannot be treated as nil arm's length merely because it is linked to sales when the assessee's margins and overall transaction profile support arm's length pricing.
TaxTMI 
