Tribunal Partially Allows Appeal, Remands AMP Adjustment for Fresh Determination

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the issues of AMP adjustment, deduction under Section 80IC, and depreciation on capital subsidy back to the TPO/AO for fresh determination. The Tribunal emphasized the need for considering relevant judicial precedents and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. AMP adjustment of Rs. 146.19 crores.
2. Denial of deduction u/s 80IC of Rs. 102.31 crores.
3. Disallowance of depreciation to the extent of capital subsidy Rs. 13.12 lakhs.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: AMP Adjustment of Rs. 146.19 Crores
- The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made an adjustment of Rs. 146.19 crores based on the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of Advertisement, Marketing, and Sales Promotion (AMP) expenses. The TPO adopted the Bright Line Test (BLT) and presumed the existence of an international transaction of AMP, alleging that the Associated Enterprise (AE) benefited from increased business.
- The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's decision, relying on the Sony Ericsson decision, ignoring the Maruti Suzuki decision.
- The Tribunal observed that the TPO did not consider the Maruti Suzuki decision and other relevant judicial precedents. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the TPO/AO for fresh determination of whether an international transaction of AMP expenses exists and, if so, to determine the ALP in light of relevant judgments.

Issue 2: Denial of Deduction u/s 80IC of Rs. 102.31 Crores
- The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80IC for the Rudrapur unit, which showed a net profit, while the other units in Manesar and Chennai showed net losses.
- The TPO disallowed the claim, arguing that the assessee was not involved in manufacturing items covered by Schedule XIV and that the turnover of the Rudrapur unit was overstated.
- The DRP upheld the TPO's decision, noting that the assessee failed to maintain separate books of accounts for each unit.
- The Tribunal noted that the assessee's location at Rudrapur falls under the scope of Section 80IC but the address was not properly verified by the TPO. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the TPO to verify the applicability of Schedule XIII and to allow a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Depreciation to the Extent of Capital Subsidy Rs. 13.12 Lakhs
- The TPO disallowed depreciation on the grounds that the capital subsidy received by the assessee was not reduced from the cost of the plant and machinery, leading to an excess claim of depreciation.
- The Tribunal noted the contention that the capital subsidy was not received during the subject year and decided to remit the issue back to the TPO for verification. The Tribunal directed the TPO to allow a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal remanded the issues related to AMP adjustment, deduction under Section 80IC, and depreciation on capital subsidy back to the TPO/AO for fresh determination, ensuring that the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

---