Appeal partly allowed, stay petition dismissed. Remand for re-evaluation; other issues decided per precedent.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the stay petition as infructuous. The matters regarding brand/logo promotion, advertisement expenses, capital subsidy depreciation, and UPS depreciation were remitted back for re-evaluation, while the issues of royalty, export incentives, and additional depreciation were decided based on previous rulings and existing records.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Issues: Brand/logo promotion, Advertisement expenses, Royalty.
2. Corporate Tax Issues: Capital subsidy depreciation, Export incentives, Additional depreciation, Depreciation on UPS.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Transfer Pricing Issues:

1. Brand/Logo Promotion:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the assessee should have received fees for brand/logo promotion activities from its parent company, HMC Korea. The TPO had determined an upward adjustment based on the "Inter-brand" valuation, attributing Rs. 204,42,31,513/- to the assessee company. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision for the assessment year 2007-08, where it had held that the "Bright line test" was the best method for determining the development of an intangible property. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the TPO for re-evaluation using the Bright Line Test.

2. Advertisement Expenses:
The TPO had added Rs. 64,15,77,200/- to the income of the assessee, considering the advertisement expenses as an international transaction benefiting the holding company. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision where it had accepted the Bright Line Test to distinguish between routine and non-routine expenses. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the TPO to apply the Bright Line Test for determining the ALP of advertisement expenses.

3. Royalty:
The TPO determined that the royalty paid by the assessee to its AE was excessive, resulting in an addition of Rs. 106,67,84,000/-. The Tribunal noted that in the previous year, the TPO had found the average royalty rate in the industry to be 4.7%. However, for the current year, the TPO found the average to be 2.54%, while the assessee paid 3.47%. The Tribunal upheld the TPO’s finding and decided against the assessee, confirming the addition.

Corporate Tax Issues:

4. Capital Subsidy Depreciation:
The AO reduced the capital subsidy received from SIPCOT from the cost of the asset, disallowing depreciation of Rs. 3,55,957/-. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been remitted back in a previous year for re-examination. Following the same approach, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the DRP for re-examination in light of previous decisions.

5. Export Incentives:
The AO treated export incentives under the target plus scheme and focus market scheme as income for the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision, where it was held that such notional income cannot be treated as taxable income until the assessee receives the licenses. Thus, the Tribunal held that the notional income should not be taxed in the relevant assessment year.

6. Additional Depreciation:
The AO disallowed additional depreciation of Rs. 5,93,605/- on assets used in the corporate office. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision, which stated that additional depreciation is allowable if the assessee is engaged in manufacturing, regardless of where the asset is used. Following this, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the additional depreciation.

7. Depreciation on UPS:
The AO allowed depreciation on UPS at 15%, treating it as plant & machinery instead of data processing equipment eligible for 60% depreciation. The Tribunal cited several decisions, including one from the Chennai Bench, which held that UPS forming part of computers is eligible for 60% depreciation. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and allow depreciation at 60% if the UPS is part of the computer system.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the stay petition as infructuous. The matters regarding brand/logo promotion, advertisement expenses, capital subsidy depreciation, and UPS depreciation were remitted back for re-evaluation, while the issues of royalty, export incentives, and additional depreciation were decided based on previous rulings and existing records.

---