Tribunal rules for assessee on arm's length price & expenses, citing case law

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on various issues including the determination of arm's length price for management support services, advertising expenses, and information technology services. The Tribunal emphasized consistency in its decisions and cited relevant case law to support the assessee's claims, resulting in the deletion of upward adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer. Other grounds not pressed by the assessee were dismissed accordingly. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify certain claims and grant appropriate credits, ultimately allowing the assessee's appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of arm's length price (ALP) for management support services (MSSA).
2. Determination of ALP for advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses.
3. Determination of ALP for information technology (IT) services.
4. Rule of consistency.
5. Variation of 3% from the arithmetic mean.
6. Adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on a without prejudice basis in respect of other segments.
7. Use of non-contemporaneous data by the TPO.
8. Disallowance of lease rent paid in respect of motor cars treating the same as capital expenditure.
9. Disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on moulds.
10. Short grant of tax deducted at source (TDS) / tax collected at source (TCS).
11. Interest under sections 234A and 234B.
12. Levy of additional tax and interest on distributable profits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of ALP for Management Support Services (MSSA):
The assessee's appeal regarding MSSA was adjudicated in its favor. The Tribunal referred to its previous order for the assessment year 2013-14, where similar issues were discussed and resolved favorably for the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the TPO had treated MSSA as stewardship services and valued the ALP at NIL. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed benefits derived from MSSA during assessment proceedings, which were ignored by the TPO. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency and cited previous decisions, including those of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts, supporting the assessee's claim. Consequently, the upward adjustment made by the TPO was deleted.

2. Determination of ALP for Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) Expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the assessee's appeal, referring to its previous order for the assessment year 2013-14, where the AMP expenses were not considered an international transaction. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs. CIT, which held that AMP expenses do not constitute international transactions. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's argument and directed the deletion of the upward adjustment made by the TPO.

3. Determination of ALP for Information Technology (IT) Services:
The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, referring to its previous order for the assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency, noting that the assessee had been claiming IT expenses for several years without denial. The Tribunal cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT, which supports maintaining consistency in the absence of material changes. The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities' decision and allowed the assessee's appeal.

4. Rule of Consistency:
The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

5. Variation of 3% from the Arithmetic Mean:
The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

6. Adjustments Made by the TPO on a Without Prejudice Basis in Respect of Other Segments:
The Tribunal referred to its previous order for the assessment year 2012-13, where similar adjustments were discussed. The Tribunal noted that the TPO's passive observations were ignored by the lower authorities and had no relevance in the proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the decision, finding no reason to interfere.

7. Use of Non-Contemporaneous Data by the TPO:
The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

8. Disallowance of Lease Rent Paid in Respect of Motor Cars Treating the Same as Capital Expenditure:
The Tribunal referred to its previous order for the assessment year 2013-14, where the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in ICDS Ltd vs. CIT, which supports the deduction of lease rentals paid for motor cars taken on finance lease. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.

9. Disallowance of Excess Depreciation Claimed on Moulds:
The Tribunal referred to its previous order for the assessment year 2013-14, where the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

10. Short Grant of TDS / TCS:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the TDS certificates and grant credit to the assessee in accordance with the law.

11. Interest under Sections 234A and 234B:
The Tribunal noted that these grounds are consequential in nature and do not require adjudication.

12. Levy of Additional Tax and Interest on Distributable Profits:
The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the correct Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) and grant credit for the amount paid by the assessee after appropriate verification.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed as per the detailed discussions on each issue, with specific directions given for verification and fresh adjudication where necessary. The Tribunal's order was pronounced on 15.05.2019.

---