2018 (4) TMI 35 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal clarifies transfer pricing range, upholds treatment of MODVAT credit in closing stock

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in the transfer pricing adjustment case, emphasizing that the +/-5% range applies to the arm's length price, ... TPA - ALP determination - whether the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer is within ±5% range as provided in the second proviso to section 92C(2)? - Held that:- A reading of the said proviso makes it clear that the ±5% range is applicable to the arm's length price and not arm's length profitability. Therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has completely misconceived the statutory provisions while rejecting the claim of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the working of ±5% referred to above and if assessee’s claim is found to be correct no addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment should be made. With the aforesaid observations, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Increase the value of opening stock of current year on account of addition made to closing stock being unutilized modvat credit - Held that:- Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Mahalaxmi Glass Works Ltd. [2009 (4) TMI 182 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as per section 145A of the Act, if there is any change in the closing stock at the end of the year then there must necessarily be a corresponding adjustment made in opening stock of that year. - Decided against revenue Issues:1. Transfer pricing adjustment concerning purchase of automotive parts.2. Treatment of unutilized MODVAT credit in closing stock.Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Purchase of Automotive Parts:The case involved cross-appeals arising from an order pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee challenged transfer pricing adjustments concerning the purchase of automotive parts made by the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Transfer Pricing Officer determined the arm's length price of the transaction at INR 38.32 crore, leading to a downward adjustment. The assessee argued that the difference between the price paid and the determined arm's length price fell within the ±5% range, as per the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, emphasizing that the ±5% range applies to the arm's length price, not profitability. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the computation and, if correct, no addition should be made. The ground was allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee's appeal was allowed accordingly.Treatment of Unutilized MODVAT Credit in Closing Stock:Regarding the treatment of unutilized MODVAT credit in closing stock, the Assessing Officer added the credit to the closing stock for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee argued for a reduction based on a similar addition in a previous year. The first appellate authority directed an increase in the value of opening stock by the amount added to the closing stock for the previous year. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing section 145A of the Act and relevant judicial precedents. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the decision was in line with statutory provisions and legal interpretations. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.---