2017 (5) TMI 476 - AT - Income Tax

Income Tax Tribunal Upholds Deduction for Trade Advances Write-Off

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gandhinagar Versus ECI Technology P. Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gandhinagar Versus ECI Technology P. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act.2. Write-off of trade advances as business loss.3. Transfer Pricing adjustment related to the sale of raw materials.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act:The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the ratification by the Board of Approval (BoA) was not obtained until after the assessment order was passed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the deduction, citing that the approval granted by the Development Commissioner was subsequently ratified by the BoA, which relates back to the original date of approval. This position was supported by the CBDT Instruction dated 09/03/2009. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat had also ruled in favor of the assessee on this matter, confirming that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 10B.2. Write-off of Trade Advances as Business Loss:The second issue was whether the write-off of trade advances amounting to Rs. 13.98 lakhs could be considered a business loss. The A.O. disallowed the write-off, arguing that the assessee, not being in the banking business, could not claim such a write-off. The CIT(A) reversed this decision, recognizing the write-off as an actual business loss incidental to the assessee's business. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), emphasizing that the advance was given in the ordinary course of business and the write-off was justified due to the cancellation of the order and non-recovery of the advance from the supplier.3. Transfer Pricing Adjustment Related to the Sale of Raw Materials:The third issue involved a Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,55,03,842/- related to the sale of surplus raw materials (copper wires) to the assessee's Associated Enterprise (AE). The A.O. and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) questioned the varying discounts received from suppliers and the basis for these discounts. The CIT(A) found that the purchase prices from third parties were not disputed and that the discounts were commercially rational, given the quantity and terms of purchase. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the assessee could not be expected to justify the varying discounts from unrelated suppliers and that the upward adjustment by the TPO was unwarranted.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions in favor of the assessee. The cross objection by the assessee was deemed academic and required no adjudication. The order was pronounced in open court on 02-05-2017.