2018 (1) TMI 1716 - AT - Income Tax

Taxpayer wins appeals for transfer pricing, ad expenses, salary adjustments.

M/s. Goodyear India Limited Versus DCIT, Circle 10 (1), Addl. CIT, Spl. Range 4, New Delhi.

M/s. Goodyear India Limited Versus DCIT, Circle 10 (1), Addl. CIT, Spl. Range 4, New Delhi. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions.2. Transfer Pricing adjustments related to trademark fees.3. Transfer Pricing adjustments related to Advertisement, Marketing, and Sales Promotion (AMP) expenses.4. Disallowance of provision for replacement loss.5. Ad hoc disallowance of advertisement and publicity expenses.6. Disallowance of miscellaneous charges and service tax written off.7. Disallowance of provision for obsolete stock of shares.8. Ad hoc disallowance of salary attributed to capital work in progress.9. Disallowance of stores and spares written off.10. Interest on late payment of provident fund under Section 43B.11. Consequential adjustments under Section 234B and Section 234C.Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for International Transactions:The taxpayer, engaged in manufacturing and trading of tyres, used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking its international transactions. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) applied the 'doctrine of benefit' to determine the ALP of trademark payments to be nil, proposing adjustments based on the taxpayer's promotion of the brand of its Associated Enterprise (AE).2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments Related to Trademark Fees:The Tribunal followed the decision in the taxpayer’s own case for previous years, confirming that the payment of trademark fees has a direct nexus with the revenue earned and cannot be analyzed in isolation. The doctrine of benefit test applied by the TPO was deemed inappropriate. Consequently, the adjustments made by the TPO for trademark fees for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 were deleted.3. Transfer Pricing Adjustments Related to AMP Expenses:The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions and the Delhi High Court rulings, concluding that AMP expenses incurred by the taxpayer do not constitute an international transaction of brand building for the AE. Therefore, the adjustments made by the TPO for AMP expenses were ordered to be deleted.4. Disallowance of Provision for Replacement Loss:The Tribunal upheld the taxpayer's method of making provisions for replacement loss based on past trends and scientific estimates, following its own decisions in earlier years. The provision for warranty was deemed allowable.5. Ad Hoc Disallowance of Advertisement and Publicity Expenses:The Tribunal followed its earlier rulings, stating that the advertisement expenses incurred by the taxpayer were wholly for business purposes and should be allowed in full. The ad hoc disallowance made by the AO was deleted.6. Disallowance of Miscellaneous Charges and Service Tax Written Off:The Tribunal noted that the taxpayer’s accounts were audited and supported by necessary documents. The AO was directed to allow the expenses after verifying their genuineness.7. Disallowance of Provision for Obsolete Stock of Shares:The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance after verifying the taxpayer's detailed records of obsolete stocks and spares, following the principle of consistency.8. Ad Hoc Disallowance of Salary Attributed to Capital Work in Progress:The Tribunal held that since the taxpayer was expanding its existing business, the salary expenses related to the administrative staff should be treated as revenue expenditure. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted.9. Disallowance of Stores and Spares Written Off:The Tribunal found that the taxpayer’s decision to write off stores and spares was a business decision supported by audited accounts. The AO was directed to delete the disallowance.10. Interest on Late Payment of Provident Fund under Section 43B:The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court’s ruling that interest on delayed payment of provident fund becomes part of the provident fund dues. Since the taxpayer had paid the interest, Section 43B was not applicable, and the disallowance was to be deleted.11. Consequential Adjustments under Section 234B and Section 234C:These grounds were deemed consequential and required no separate adjudication.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to delete various disallowances and adjustments after verifying the taxpayer's claims and supporting documents. The decisions were largely based on the principle of consistency and previous rulings in the taxpayer's own cases.