ITAT allows TP adjustments, section 35(2AB) R&D deductions, and business vehicle depreciation following binding precedents

ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds. The tribunal allowed appeals regarding TP adjustments for corporate guarantee charges, interest imputation on optionally convertible loans, and reimbursement of expenses, following precedents from the assessee's own cases for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14. The tribunal also permitted weighted deductions under section 35(2AB) for R&D expenses, noting that prior to 2016 amendments, no quantification approval was required from prescribed authorities. Additionally, depreciation on a Hummer car was allowed despite registration in the director's name, as the vehicle was used for business purposes. All disallowances were deleted, with the tribunal consistently following binding precedents from the assessee's previous assessment years.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Upward adjustments on international transactions related to Transfer Pricing (Corporate Guarantee Charges, Interest Imputation on Optionally Convertible Loans, Reimbursement of Expenses).
2. Addition on account of Product Registration Expenses and reimbursement for Product Registration Support Services.
3. Addition on account of Trademark Registration Fees and Patent Registration Fees.
4. Addition as non-eligible expenditure under section 35(2AB) of the Act.
5. Eligibility for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in connection with R&D expenses for Clinical Trial and Bio-equivalence Study.
6. Disallowance of depreciation on Hummer car.
7. Adjustment in respect of disallowance under section 14A for computation of book profits under section 115JB.
8. Credit for TDS.
9. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C.
10. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

Ground 1(a): Upward Adjustment on Corporate Guarantee Charges
The issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 17,44,51,548/- on account of corporate guarantee charges. The TPO benchmarked the corporate guarantee fee at 2.52%, based on external CUPs from banks. The assessee argued that the issue is covered in its favor by the ITAT's orders for previous assessment years (2012-13 and 2013-14), which benchmarked the fee at 1%. The ITAT upheld the assessee's plea, allowing the ground of appeal.

Ground 1(b): Upward Adjustment on Interest Imputation on Optionally Convertible Loans
The TPO imputed interest on optionally convertible loans advanced to the subsidiary, ZIPL, treating them as quasi-equity. The assessee contended that this issue is covered in its favor by ITAT orders for previous years. The ITAT agreed, citing previous rulings that characterized such loans as quasi-capital and not comparable to simple loan transactions. The ground of appeal was allowed.

Ground 1(c): Upward Adjustment on Reimbursement of Expenses
The TPO determined the ALP for reimbursements to AEs (Zydus Mexico, Zydus France, and Zydus Japan) as "Nil," treating the assessee as a contract manufacturer. The assessee argued that it acted as an entrepreneur/IP owner, and the reimbursements were on a cost-to-cost basis. The ITAT found the expenses were indeed for the assessee's business interests and allowed the ground of appeal.

Ground 2: Addition on Product Registration Expenses
The AO treated product registration expenses as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation but adding the residual amount. The assessee argued that this issue is covered by ITAT orders for previous years, which treated such expenses as revenue expenditure. The ITAT upheld the assessee's plea, allowing the ground of appeal.

Ground 3: Addition on Trademark and Patent Registration Fees
The AO disallowed trademark and patent registration fees as capital expenditure. The assessee cited ITAT rulings for previous years, which treated these expenses as revenue expenditure. The ITAT agreed and allowed the ground of appeal.

Ground 4: Addition as Non-eligible Expenditure under Section 35(2AB)
The AO and DRP made additions based on the amount allowed by DSIR being less than the claimed deduction. The ITAT cited various rulings, including those from the Pune and Mumbai Tribunals, which held that prior to amendments in 2016, DSIR's role was limited to approval of the facility, not quantification of expenditure. The ITAT allowed the ground of appeal.

Ground 5: Eligibility for Weighted Deduction under Section 35(2AB) for Clinical Trial and Bio-equivalence Study
The AO and DRP disallowed the deduction for expenses incurred outside the approved R&D facilities. The assessee argued that this issue is covered by ITAT orders for previous years. The ITAT upheld the assessee's plea, allowing the ground of appeal.

Ground 6: Disallowance of Depreciation on Hummer Car
The AO disallowed depreciation on the Hummer car, stating it was owned by the director, not the company. The assessee cited ITAT rulings for previous years, which allowed depreciation based on beneficial ownership and business use. The ITAT agreed and allowed the ground of appeal.

Ground 7: Adjustment under Section 14A for Computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB
The AO added disallowed expenses under section 14A to book profits under section 115JB. The assessee cited ITAT rulings for previous years, which excluded such disallowances from book profits. The ITAT upheld the assessee's plea, allowing the ground of appeal.

Grounds 8 to 11: Not Pressed
The counsel for the assessee did not press these grounds, as they were consequential or addressed in rectification proceedings. These grounds were dismissed as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the ITAT ruling in favor of the assessee on all pressed grounds, primarily based on precedent cases from previous assessment years.

---