Transfer pricing appeal allowed for re-examination of comparability issues and expense disallowance

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO/TPO to re-examine transfer pricing adjustment issues, particularly the comparability of selected companies and the claim of capacity utilization. The Tribunal remanded the issues of disallowance of expenses due to low net profit ratio and non-payment of excise duty liability back to the AO for further verification and examination. The grounds related to the legality of the assessment order and charging of interest were not specifically adjudicated.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment order.
2. Transfer pricing adjustment.
3. Disallowance of expenses due to low net profit ratio.
4. Disallowance on account of non-payment of excise duty liability.
5. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Assessment Order:
The appellant contended that the assessment order dated 28.03.2021, completed under sections 143(3)/144C/143(3A)/143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was illegal and bad in law. However, this general ground was not specifically adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The appellant challenged the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 56,50,353 made by the Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on several grounds. The key issues included the rejection of the benchmarking analysis, incorrect selection of comparables, non-exclusion of certain expenditures, and denial of capacity utilization adjustment.

- Benchmarking Analysis and Comparables: The TPO rejected the appellant’s benchmarking analysis using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and selected additional comparables, leading to an adjustment. The Tribunal noted that the comparables should be functionally similar, specifically distinguishing between core and non-core auto components as per the decision in Nissin Brake India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-examine the comparability of the selected companies based on the nature of components manufactured (core vs. non-core) and other objections raised by the appellant.

- Capacity Utilization and Depreciation: The appellant claimed adjustments due to idle capacity and higher depreciation costs. The Tribunal directed the TPO to examine the claim of capacity utilization based on the data submitted by the appellant.

- Profit on Sale of Tools and Depreciation: The Tribunal upheld the TPO’s treatment of profit on the sale of tools as non-operating and depreciation as operating expenses, aligning with the decision of the Karnataka High Court in PCIT vs. Kirloskar Toyota Textile Machinery Private Limited.

3. Disallowance of Expenses Due to Low Net Profit Ratio:
The AO disallowed INR 11,03,93,150 due to a fall in the net profit ratio, attributing it to increased costs without credible evidence. The Tribunal noted that the appellant provided a new reason for the low net profit ratio, citing a loss on foreign currency transactions. The Tribunal set aside the findings of the lower authorities and remanded the issue back to the AO for re-examination and verification of the appellant’s contentions.

4. Disallowance on Account of Non-Payment of Excise Duty Liability:
The AO disallowed INR 33,92,861 due to the absence of evidence of excise duty payment. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of the appellant’s claim that the excise duty was paid through Cenvat credit adjustments before the due date for filing the return, in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. Union of India.

5. Charging of Interest Under Sections 234B and 234C:
The appellant contested the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act. However, this issue was not specifically adjudicated upon in the Tribunal’s order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO/TPO to re-examine the transfer pricing adjustment issues, specifically the comparability of selected companies and the claim of capacity utilization. The Tribunal also remanded the issues of disallowance of expenses due to low net profit ratio and non-payment of excise duty liability back to the AO for further verification and examination. The grounds related to the legality of the assessment order and charging of interest were not specifically adjudicated.

---