Tribunal grants partial appeal, overturning Transfer Pricing adjustment and some deemed dividend additions.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, deleting the Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,68,78,811 and the deemed dividend additions of Rs. 43,00,000 and Rs. 12,99,655, but upheld the deemed dividend addition of Rs. 1,48,37,352 under Section 2(22)(e).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing (T.P.) Adjustment: Rs. 1,68,78,811/-
2. Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e): Rs. 2,04,37,007/-

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing (T.P.) Adjustment: Rs. 1,68,78,811/-

The assessee, a diamond merchant, entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and Return on Capital Employed (RoCE) to compute the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). The TPO ultimately applied the TNMM, resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,68,78,811/-. The CIT(A) upheld this adjustment, noting that the PLI should be based on Operating Profit/Total Cost (OP/TC) rather than RoCE, which was deemed academic.

The assessee argued that the ALP should be determined only for international transactions and not at the entity level. The Tribunal agreed, citing precedents that support the principle of proportionality, where adjustments should be limited to international transactions. The Tribunal found that if the ALP was computed only for international transactions, it would fall within the safe harbor of +/- 5%, thus negating the need for adjustment. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,68,78,811/-.

2. Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e): Rs. 2,04,37,007/-

The AO initially made an addition of Rs. 3,21,37,007/- under Section 2(22)(e), which was later corrected to Rs. 2,04,37,007/- after rectifications. The assessee maintained two sets of books, one personal and one for the proprietary concern, M/s. Dipti Diamonds. The AO treated certain amounts as loans from Dinurje Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., thereby classifying them as deemed dividends.

The Tribunal examined the consolidated account of the assessee with Dinurje, noting that the assessee had a significant credit balance throughout the year. It was determined that the withdrawals did not constitute loans or advances, as the assessee had sufficient credit. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 43,00,000/- and Rs. 12,99,655/-.

Regarding the loan of Rs. 1,48,37,352/- from Dinurje to Ace Divine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the addition. The assessee held substantial interest in both companies, and the transaction fell under the second limb of Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd., which supports taxing such transactions as deemed dividends in the hands of the substantial shareholder. Thus, the addition of Rs. 1,48,37,352/- was sustained.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal partially, deleting the T.P. adjustment of Rs. 1,68,78,811/- and the deemed dividend additions of Rs. 43,00,000/- and Rs. 12,99,655/-, but upheld the deemed dividend addition of Rs. 1,48,37,352/-.

---