Tribunal partially allows appeal, remits issues for fresh adjudication, emphasizes reasoned orders & judicial precedents.

M/s. Huntsman International (India) Private Limited Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 15 (2) -1, Mumbai

M/s. Huntsman International (India) Private Limited Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 15 (2) -1, Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Erroneous disallowance of the corporate service charges.
2. Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill.
3. Disallowance of depreciation on intangibles.
4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act.
5. Disallowance of expenditure on payment basis under section 43B of the Act.
6. Disallowance of share issue expenditure.
7. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Erroneous Disallowance of the Corporate Service Charges:
The assessee reported international transactions and the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) adjusted the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for corporate service charges paid to its Associated Enterprise (AE). The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's adjustment, leading to an addition of Rs. 5,26,86,111/-. The Tribunal found that the DRP's order was non-speaking and lacked consideration of the evidence submitted by the assessee. Hence, the matter was remitted back to the DRP for fresh adjudication with a reasoned and speaking order, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10.

2. Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill:
The AO did not follow the DRP's directions to allow depreciation on goodwill under section 32(1)(ii). The Tribunal directed the AO to comply with the DRP's directions and allow the depreciation on goodwill for the assessment year 2010-11.

3. Disallowance of Depreciation on Intangibles:
The AO/DRP disallowed depreciation on intangible assets like material supply contracts and distribution networks, claiming they were not akin to those referred in section 32(1)(ii). The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions in the assessee's cases for A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2009-10, held that these intangibles fall under the category of commercial rights mentioned in section 32, hence eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on these intangible assets.

4. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act:
The AO/DRP disallowed Rs. 47,24,097/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn or receive any exempt income during the year, no disallowance under section 14A could be made. This decision was based on precedents from the Delhi High Court in cases like Cheminvest Ltd. and Holcim India (P) Ltd. Consequently, the disallowance was deleted.

5. Disallowance of Expenditure on Payment Basis under Section 43B of the Act:
The AO/DRP disallowed the deduction for payment made in connection with liabilities of CIBA Speciality Ltd. taken over by the assessee. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2007-08 and the Supreme Court's ruling in T. Veerabhadra Rao, held that the assessee was legally bound to make these payments and allowed the deduction.

6. Disallowance of Share Issue Expenditure:
The assessee did not press this ground during the hearing. Hence, it was rendered infructuous and dismissed.

7. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Since no penalty was levied, the Tribunal found this ground premature and dismissed it.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remitting certain issues back to the DRP for fresh adjudication and allowing the assessee's claims on others. The decision emphasizes the need for reasoned orders and adherence to judicial precedents.