Tribunal decision: AMP expenses deleted, warranty provision allowed, interest deduction permitted. Dismissed interest under sections 234B and 234C.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by deleting the protective addition for AMP expenses, allowing the provision for warranty, and permitting the deduction for interest on delayed TDS deposit. The issue of interest under sections 234B and 234C was dismissed as consequential. The judgment was pronounced on June 18, 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Addition on account of AMP expenses using Bright Line Test.
2. Disallowance of provision for warranty.
3. Disallowance of deduction for interest on delayed TDS deposit.
4. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition on account of AMP expenses using Bright Line Test:

The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 4,26,35,832/- made on a 'protective' basis due to differences in the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions related to advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses. The adjustment was initially made using the Bright Line Test (BLT). The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd., ruled that the BLT method is invalid for AMP expense adjustments. The Tribunal, referencing its own decision in the assessee's case for the Assessment Year 2013-14, confirmed that the BLT method could not be applied, and thus, the protective addition of Rs. 4,26,35,832/- was deleted.

2. Disallowance of provision for warranty:

The assessee created a provision for warranty amounting to Rs. 9,80,20,092/- based on actuarial estimation but only claimed the actual utilization of Rs. 1,43,50,306/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the provision, citing that fresh claims should be made through a revised return, not during Tribunal proceedings. The Tribunal, however, noted that the provision was certified by an actuarial certificate and referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, which recognized warranty provisions as normal business expenditures. Following the Tribunal's earlier decision for the Assessment Year 2008-09, the provision for Rs. 7,26,60,644/- was allowed.

3. Disallowance of deduction for interest on delayed TDS deposit:

The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 1,49,607/- for interest on delayed TDS deposit under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal found that interest on delayed TDS is compensatory and not a tax on profits and gains. Therefore, it held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ii) was not sustainable and allowed the deduction.

4. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act:

The assessee challenged the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C. The Tribunal noted that this issue is consequential and dismissed the ground.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal deleting the protective addition for AMP expenses, allowing the provision for warranty, and permitting the deduction for interest on delayed TDS deposit. The issue of interest under sections 234B and 234C was dismissed as consequential. The judgment was pronounced on June 18, 2018.

---