2013 (3) TMI 854 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal errors in Transfer Pricing & Depreciation rulings spark tax law interpretation concerns

The Tribunal's decision to delete the Transfer Pricing adjustment was deemed erroneous as it overlooked the Function, Assets, and Risk analysis for the ... - Issues involved: Transfer Pricing adjustment, Application of Section 92C(2), Additional depreciation on computers, Depreciation of leasehold rights in land.Transfer Pricing adjustment: The Tribunal erred in deleting the Transfer Pricing adjustment based on artificially created sub-segments of international transactions. The Tribunal ignored the Function, Assets, and Risk analysis for the assessee, who was a trader of spares and components. The Tribunal's decision was based on the application of spares and components required for servicing and manufacturing of vehicles.Application of Section 92C(2): The Tribunal erred in holding that the Explanation below proviso to Section 92C(2) was applicable only from the assessment year 2009-10 onwards and not to pending references as on 1st October 2009. This decision raised questions on the timing and applicability of the adjustment in respect of the variation in Arm's Length Price (ALP).Additional depreciation on computers: The Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation on computers. It failed to appreciate that additional depreciation is applicable only to plants and machineries, while computers fall under a separate block of assets. This decision highlighted a misunderstanding of the relevant depreciation rules.Depreciation of leasehold rights in land: The Tribunal erred in setting aside the issue of depreciation of leasehold rights in land to the file of the Assessing Officer. This decision was based on a reference to a Supreme Court case that was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal's action raised concerns about the proper treatment of depreciation for leasehold rights in land.