Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on tax issues, grants relief on international transactions & deductions

M/s Dabur India Ltd. Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-10 New Delhi And DCIT Circle-7 (1) New Delhi Versus M/s Dabur India Ltd.

M/s Dabur India Ltd. Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-10 New Delhi And DCIT Circle-7 (1) New Delhi Versus M/s Dabur India Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. International Transaction and Royalty Charges
2. Corporate Guarantee Service Fee
3. Deduction under Section 80IB and 80IC
4. Disallowance under Section 14A
5. ESOP Expenses
6. Exempted Excise Duty as Capital Receipt

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. International Transaction and Royalty Charges:
The primary contention was whether there was an international transaction under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerning the alleged royalty chargeable from three Associated Enterprises (AEs). The assessee argued that no royalty accrued during the year due to the absence of any contract, and the substantial advertisement and marketing expenditures were incurred by the AEs outside India. The Tribunal noted that similar issues in previous years had been resolved in the assessee's favor, where it was held that no royalty was payable by Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd. and that the royalty rate for Dabur International Ltd. and Asian Consumer Care Pvt. Ltd. should be restricted to 0.75%. Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the royalty charges.

2. Corporate Guarantee Service Fee:
The issue involved the notional service fee on account of corporate guarantees provided by the assessee to Dabur Egypt Ltd. and Naturalle LLC. The Tribunal observed that in previous years, it had restricted the service fee to 0.30% instead of the higher rates applied by the TPO and CIT(A). The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions and directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the service fee to 0.30% for the relevant assessment year, thereby partly allowing the assessee's appeal and dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

3. Deduction under Section 80IB and 80IC:
The dispute was regarding the allocation of head office expenses and depreciation to various units for computing deductions under Sections 80IB and 80IC. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, which followed its orders from previous years, stating that the expenses and depreciation should not be allocated to the eligible units as they were either added back by the assessee or not related to the eligible units. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

4. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The assessee contended that no exempt income was earned during the relevant year, and hence, no disallowance under Section 14A should be made. The Tribunal noted that similar issues in previous years had been resolved in favor of the assessee, where it was held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A could be made. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

5. ESOP Expenses:
The assessee raised an additional ground seeking the deduction of ESOP expenses under Section 37, which was initially added back in the computation of income. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, following its earlier decisions, and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to decide in accordance with the law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6. Exempted Excise Duty as Capital Receipt:
The assessee raised an additional ground claiming that the exempted excise duty should be treated as a capital receipt not liable to tax. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, noting that similar issues had been remanded in previous years, and directed the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue in accordance with the law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal's decisions were largely based on precedents set in previous years for similar issues, ensuring consistency in the application of the law.