TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal backs assessee's transfer pricing method, allows warranty provision & bad debt claim</h1> <h3>The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune Versus Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. And Vice-Versa.</h3> The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune Versus Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. And Vice-Versa. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Aggregation Approach in Benchmarking International Transactions2. Provision for Warranty3. Claim of Bad DebtsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Aggregation Approach in Benchmarking International Transactions:The Revenue challenged the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)'s decision to support the aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for benchmarking international transactions. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had rejected this approach, favoring a segmental or sub-segmental approach, leading to adjustments amounting to Rs. 16.27 Crore. The DRP reversed the TPO's decision, supporting the assessee's aggregation approach.The Tribunal noted that the assessee's various business activities, including manufacturing packaging materials, trading, and importing straws and capital equipment, were interlaced. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision for A.Y. 2009-10, where the aggregation approach was upheld, emphasizing that the activities were closely interlinked and could not be evaluated separately. The Tribunal found the issue covered by its earlier decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, supporting the DRP's decision.2. Provision for Warranty:The assessee contested the disallowance of the incremental provision for warranty amounting to Rs. 1,04,84,520/-. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions for A.Ys. 2002-03 & 2004-05, where the provision for warranty was allowed. The Tribunal reiterated that the provision for warranty, systematically maintained and written back if unutilized, is an accepted accounting practice and not a contingent liability. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, which supported the assessee's method of recognizing warranty liabilities. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for the provision for warranty.3. Claim of Bad Debts:The assessee also contested the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 85,00,273/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the DRP had disallowed the claim, suspecting the debts' validity due to ongoing business transactions with the debtors. The Tribunal, however, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT, which held that once the bad debts are written off in the books of account, the AO cannot question their correctness. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the conditions of Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and reversed the DRP's decision, allowing the assessee's claim for bad debts.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, supporting the DRP's decision on the aggregation approach in benchmarking international transactions. It allowed the assessee's appeal, accepting the provision for warranty and the claim for bad debts, thus reversing the DRP's and AO's disallowances. The order was pronounced on 27th October 2017.
TaxTMI 