Tribunal remands TP issues for review, rules in favor on tax grounds

Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-5 (2), New Delhi And Vice-Versa

Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-5 (2), New Delhi And Vice-Versa - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Grounds
2. Corporate Tax Grounds
3. Jurisdiction of the TPO
4. Non-existence of International Transaction
5. Application of Bright Line Test (BLT)
6. Exclusion of Selling and Distribution Expenses
7. Profit Split Method (PSM) for Benchmarking
8. Aggregated Approach for Benchmarking
9. Quantitative Adjustments
10. Credit of Prepaid Taxes and Foreign Tax Credit
11. Set-off of Brought Forward Losses
12. Deduction under Chapter VI-A
13. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D
14. Computational Errors
15. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Grounds:
The Assessee challenged the adjustments made by the AO/DRP/TPO regarding the alleged international transaction of excess AMP expenditure, arguing that it was not at arm's length. The AO used the Bright Line Test, which is not a prescribed method under Indian TP regulations. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the TPO/AO for verification in light of agreements signed by the Assessee with its AEs.

2. Corporate Tax Grounds:
The Assessee contested the addition of unutilized subsidy received from Canon Singapore Pte. Ltd., arguing it should not be treated as revenue receipt. The Tribunal, referencing earlier decisions, ruled in favor of the Assessee, stating the unutilized subsidy is a current liability and not income.

3. Jurisdiction of the TPO:
The Assessee argued that the TPO does not have the jurisdiction to determine the character of a transaction as an international transaction. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, stating that the TPO can take up any transfer pricing issue referred by the AO as per Section 92CA of the Act.

4. Non-existence of International Transaction:
The Assessee contended that the AMP expenditure does not qualify as an international transaction. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the TPO/AO for verification, directing them to examine the agreements signed by the Assessee with its AEs.

5. Application of Bright Line Test (BLT):
The Assessee argued against the use of BLT for benchmarking AMP expenditure, citing several judicial pronouncements that have held BLT to be ultra-vires the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the TPO/AO for reconsideration.

6. Exclusion of Selling and Distribution Expenses:
The Assessee argued that trade discounts, commission, and other sales-related expenses should be excluded from AMP expenditure. The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to exclude these expenses from the ambit of AMP expenditure, following earlier Tribunal and High Court decisions.

7. Profit Split Method (PSM) for Benchmarking:
The Assessee contended that the TPO incorrectly applied PSM for benchmarking the alleged international transaction of brand building services. The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the TPO/AO for reconsideration, stating that the main issue of AMP is also remanded back.

8. Aggregated Approach for Benchmarking:
The Assessee argued for an aggregated approach for benchmarking distribution and marketing functions. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, stating it becomes infructuous as the main issue of AMP is remanded back.

9. Quantitative Adjustments:
The Assessee's ground regarding quantitative adjustments was dismissed as academic, given the remand of the main AMP issue.

10. Credit of Prepaid Taxes and Foreign Tax Credit:
The Assessee argued that the AO did not allow the entire credit of prepaid taxes and foreign tax credit. The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the AO for verification and proper consideration.

11. Set-off of Brought Forward Losses:
The Assessee contended that the AO did not allow the set-off of brought forward losses. The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the AO for verification and reconsideration.

12. Deduction under Chapter VI-A:
The Assessee argued that the AO did not allow the deduction under Chapter VI-A. The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the AO for verification and reconsideration.

13. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D:
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234D as consequential.

14. Computational Errors:
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to computational errors as consequential.

15. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings:
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) as consequential.

Separate Judgments:
The Tribunal delivered a comprehensive judgment covering multiple appeals and issues, remanding several matters back to the TPO/AO for verification and reconsideration, while dismissing others as academic or consequential.