Tribunal Upheld Assessment Order, Dismissed Non-Compliance, and Directed Interest Computation

The Tribunal deemed the assessment order valid as it was issued within the limitation period. The reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer was upheld, and non-compliance with CBDT instructions was dismissed. Share application money partly treated as loans was upheld, with interest computation directed. Disallowance of lease rentals was upheld but allowed for depreciation and interest. Loss on forward exchange contracts disallowed due to subsequent allowance. Provision for leave encashment issue referred to Supreme Court. Disallowance under Section 14A was dismissed. Levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C was upheld. General grounds for appeal were dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed with specific directions given for each issue.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of assessment order.
2. Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
3. Non-compliance with CBDT instructions.
4. Share application money treated as loans and advances.
5. Addition of interest.
6. Disallowance of lease rentals.
7. Disallowance of loss on forward exchange contracts.
8. Disallowance of provision for leave encashment.
9. Disallowance under Section 14A.
10. Levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C.
11. General grounds for appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment Order:
The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order on the grounds that it was passed beyond the limitation period under Section 153(1) of the Act. The Tribunal held that Section 144C, which provides for a draft assessment order in cases involving Transfer Pricing adjustments, was applicable. The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 144C were procedural and not substantive, thus applicable retrospectively. Since the draft assessment order was issued within the prescribed time, the final assessment order dated 19.01.2012 was within the period of limitation. Hence, the assessment order was deemed valid.

2. Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO):
The assessee's contention that the reference to the TPO was invalid due to non-satisfaction of necessary conditions was not pressed during the hearing. Therefore, this ground of appeal was dismissed.

3. Non-compliance with CBDT Instructions:
The assessee argued that the reference to the TPO was contrary to CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2003. However, this ground was also not pressed during the hearing and was dismissed.

4. Share Application Money Treated as Loans and Advances:
The Tribunal examined whether the remittance of share application money to the assessee's wholly-owned subsidiary (WOS) was correctly treated as loans and advances. It was observed that shares were allotted for a part of the remittance, while the balance amount was refunded. The Tribunal concluded that the remittance for which shares were allotted could not be re-characterized as a loan due to delay in allotment. However, the balance amount refunded was rightly treated as a loan. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to compute interest on the refunded amount using the 6-month LIBOR plus 150 basis points.

5. Addition of Interest:
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to compute interest on the refunded share application money using the 6-month LIBOR plus 150 basis points, thereby partly allowing the assessee's appeal.

6. Disallowance of Lease Rentals:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of lease rentals, agreeing with the lower authorities that the lease transaction was a finance lease and not an operating lease. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the assessee's claim for depreciation and interest on the leased assets as per the provisions of the Act.

7. Disallowance of Loss on Forward Exchange Contracts:
The assessee's claim for the loss on forward exchange contracts was disallowed by the AO as notional loss. The Tribunal noted that the AO had allowed the loss in the subsequent assessment year (A.Y. 2009-10). Therefore, the assessee's appeal on this ground was dismissed as not pressed.

8. Disallowance of Provision for Leave Encashment:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of allowability of provision for leave encashment under Section 43B(f) was pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to be decided in conformity with the Supreme Court's judgment.

9. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The assessee did not press this ground during the hearing. Consequently, it was dismissed as not pressed.

10. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:
The Tribunal upheld the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C, noting that it was mandatory, automatic, and consequential.

11. General Grounds for Appeal:
Since the assessee did not seek to add, alter, or amend any grounds of appeal during the hearing, this ground was dismissed as general in nature.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with specific directions provided for each issue as discussed above. The order was pronounced in the open court on 16/09/2016.

---