Tribunal rules Tonnage Tax Scheme companies exempt from transfer pricing, interest, and penalty.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that transfer pricing provisions do not apply to companies covered under the Tonnage Tax Scheme (TTS). Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was deemed inapplicable. The adjustment on account of allocation of head office expenses was also rejected as the TTS income is computed on a presumptive basis. Issues related to interest levy and penalty proceedings were considered academic following the primary ruling. An additional ground concerning Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) was admitted for further examination by the Assessing Officer in light of relevant case law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of transfer pricing provisions to companies covered under the Tonnage Tax Scheme (TTS).
2. Addition on account of allocation of head office expenses.
3. Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C.
4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).
5. Additional ground concerning Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under section 115-O.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Transfer Pricing Provisions to Companies Covered under the Tonnage Tax Scheme (TTS):
The primary issue in this case was whether the transfer pricing provisions under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act apply to a company registered under the Tonnage Tax Scheme (TTS) as per Chapter XII-G. The assessee contended that since it was governed by TTS, which provides for a presumptive basis of taxation based on the tonnage capacity of qualifying ships and the number of days operated, the transfer pricing provisions should not apply. The Tribunal noted that the TTS provisions override sections 28 to 43C of the Act, and the computation of income under TTS is based on the weight of the vessel and not on actual income or expenses. The Tribunal cited its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2007-08 and 2011-12, where it was held that transfer pricing provisions do not apply to income from operating qualifying ships under TTS. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO was not applicable.

2. Addition on Account of Allocation of Head Office Expenses:
The assessee challenged the adjustment of Rs. 17,24,50,468 made by the TPO towards head office expenses. The Tribunal observed that since the transfer pricing provisions do not apply to the assessee's income under TTS, the adjustment made by the TPO was irrelevant. The Tribunal noted that the income under TTS is computed on a presumptive basis and is not affected by actual expenses. Therefore, the addition made by the TPO was deleted.

3. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:
The assessee contested the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C amounting to Rs. 3,48,71,080 and Rs. 1,27,057, respectively. However, since the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on the primary issue of transfer pricing provisions not being applicable, the grounds related to the levy of interest became academic and did not require adjudication.

4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The assessee also challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). As the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on the primary issue, this ground also became academic and did not require further adjudication.

5. Additional Ground Concerning Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under Section 115-O:
The assessee raised an additional ground concerning the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid under section 115-O, arguing that the tax paid was in excess of the rate provided under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the Netherlands. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, noting that the issue could not be raised earlier due to the prevailing legal position. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine it in light of the Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Union of India vs. Tata Tea Co. Ltd. and Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT, which held that DDT is a tax on dividend income. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider all relevant pleas.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on the primary issue of the applicability of transfer pricing provisions to income under TTS, leading to the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment. Consequently, other related grounds became academic. The additional ground concerning DDT was admitted and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The appeal was treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---