Tribunal Partially Allows Assessee's Appeals for AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12

The tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, directing the AO to make adjustments in favor of the assessee on various issues such as transfer pricing, R&D expenses deduction, promotional expenses, alleged bogus purchases, allocation of corporate expenses, scrap sales deduction, disallowance under Section 14A, education cess claim, interest levy under MAT provisions, and export incentives deduction. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal emphasized the importance of following judicial precedents and conducting thorough verifications in its detailed directions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments
2. Deduction u/s 35(2AB) for R&D Expenses
3. Disallowance of Publicity and Promotional Expenses
4. Addition on account of Alleged Bogus Purchases
5. Allocation of Corporate Expenses to 80-IB / 80-IC Units
6. Deduction u/s 80-IB / 80-IC on Scrap Sales
7. Disallowance u/s 14A
8. Claim of Education Cess
9. Erroneous Levy of Interest u/s 234C on Tax Liability Determined under MAT Provisions
10. Deduction of Export Incentives

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments
The assessee benchmarked its transactions using the Cost-Plus-Method (CPM) and compared product-wise margins on sales to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) with those on sales to unrelated parties. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed adjustments by denying certain adjustments claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) allowed some adjustments (functional differences and marketing costs) while denying others (non-variable costs, sales return, and competition). The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on functional differences and marketing costs but reversed the denial of adjustments for non-variable costs, sales return, and competition, directing the AO to allow these adjustments.

2. Deduction u/s 35(2AB) for R&D Expenses
The assessee claimed weighted deduction for R&D expenses. The AO denied the deduction citing the lack of Form 3CM. The CIT(A) allowed depreciation on the intangible asset but denied the weighted deduction. The tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the AO to grant the weighted deduction, noting that the R&D facility was approved by DSIR and the expenses were genuine.

3. Disallowance of Publicity and Promotional Expenses
The AO disallowed expenses on promotional items given to doctors and stockists, citing CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 and MCI regulations. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance for promotional items given to doctors and stockists but allowed other expenses subject to verification. The tribunal held that the CBDT circular was not applicable for the assessment year in question and allowed the expenses as business deductions.

4. Addition on account of Alleged Bogus Purchases
The AO disallowed purchases from certain entities based on information from the Sales Tax Department. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The tribunal, following its decision in the assessee's case for the previous year, directed the AO to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the suspicious purchases.

5. Allocation of Corporate Expenses to 80-IB / 80-IC Units
The AO reallocated operating expenses, finance expenses, and depreciation to the 80-IB / 80-IC units. The CIT(A) provided partial relief. The tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the allocation of depreciation and interest expenses, considering the nature of the expenses and their connection to the units.

6. Deduction u/s 80-IB / 80-IC on Scrap Sales
The AO excluded scrap sales from the deduction computation. The CIT(A) upheld this exclusion. The tribunal, citing relevant case law, directed the AO to include scrap sales in the deduction computation.

7. Disallowance u/s 14A
The AO made an additional disallowance under Section 14A, which was included in the normal income and the Book-Profits u/s 115JB. The tribunal, noting that the assessee had sufficient own funds, directed the AO to delete the additional disallowance.

8. Claim of Education Cess
The assessee sought deduction for education cess and secondary & higher education cess. The tribunal, citing relevant High Court decisions, directed the AO to verify the claim and allow the deduction.

9. Erroneous Levy of Interest u/s 234C on Tax Liability Determined under MAT Provisions
The AO levied interest u/s 234C on the tax liability determined under MAT provisions. The tribunal, considering judicial precedents, directed the AO to re-examine the levy of interest.

10. Deduction of Export Incentives
The assessee claimed that export incentives received under certain schemes were capital in nature and not includible in normal income or Book-Profits. The tribunal directed the AO to verify the claim and adjudicate the issue in light of relevant judicial pronouncements.

Conclusion:
The assessee's appeals for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 were partly allowed, while the revenue's appeal was dismissed. The tribunal provided detailed directions on various issues, emphasizing the need for verification and adherence to judicial precedents.

---