Tribunal Partially Allows Appeal, Remits Matter for Fresh ALP Determination. Subsidy Treated as Non-Taxable Capital Receipt.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remitting the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of the ALP in accordance with the Tribunal's directions. The subsidy received under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 was treated as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax, emphasizing its link to fixed capital investment and incentivizing industrial growth.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. P.L.I. Computation of Assessee
2. Inclusion or Exclusion of Comparables
3. Proportionate Adjustment of Transfer Pricing
4. Treatment of Subsidy Received under Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. P.L.I. Computation of Assessee

6.1. Provision Written Back and Balances Written Off:
The assessee contended that `Provision written back` amounting to Rs.85.46 lakh and `Balances written off` amounting to Rs.134.88 lakh should be treated as non-operating. The TPO disagreed, treating them as non-operating since no details were submitted to prove that the balances written off pertained to the current year. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO/TPO for verification, emphasizing that if these amounts were previously included in operating costs, their reversal should be considered operating revenue.

7.1. Miscellaneous Income:
The assessee included `Miscellaneous income` of Rs.15.87 lakh as Operating revenue, which the TPO considered non-operating. The Tribunal upheld the TPO's decision, noting that items like `Recovery of Telephone deposit` and `Recovery of contribution to Provident Fund` do not qualify as operating revenue due to lack of evidence showing their inclusion in operating costs.

8.1. Extraordinary One-Time Cost:
The assessee argued that `Extraordinary one-time cost due to change in assumption for actuarial valuation` of Rs.1.37 crore should be non-operating. The Tribunal rejected this, stating that actuarial valuation is an annual exercise reflecting the liability for that year, thus making it an operating cost.

9. Excess Payment of Non-Cenvatable Import Duty:
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Hyundai Construction Equipment India Private Ltd., treating excess payment of non-cenvatable import duty as part of operating cost.

10. Foreign Exchange Fluctuation:
The Tribunal also followed its earlier decision in Hyundai Construction Equipment India Private Ltd., treating foreign exchange fluctuation as part of operating cost.

11.1. Subvention Receipt:
The TPO excluded the Subvention receipt of Rs.5.01 crore from operating revenue, a decision upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not include this amount in total income for tax purposes, thus it cannot be considered operating revenue for ALP determination.

II. Inclusion or Exclusion of Comparables

Elgi Electric Industries Ltd.:
The Tribunal excluded this company from the list of comparables, noting that the TPO failed to demonstrate its functional similarity with the assessee. The Annual report indicated involvement in textile business rather than manufacturing textile machines.

Luwa India:
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of this company, which was involved in manufacturing air engineering machinery for textiles and air treatment systems, making it functionally dissimilar to the assessee.

Yamuna Machine Works Ltd.:
The Tribunal included this company in the list of comparables, rejecting the TPO's exclusion based on improper disclosure of related party transactions. The Tribunal found that the company was functionally similar to the assessee with no significant related party transactions.

III. Proportionate Adjustment of Transfer Pricing

16.1. Proportionate Adjustment:
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to restrict the transfer pricing adjustment only to the value of international transactions, following the precedent set in the assessee's case for the previous assessment year 2013-14.

IV. Treatment of Subsidy Received under Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007

18.2. Subsidy as Capital Receipt:
The Tribunal overturned the AO's decision, treating the subsidy received under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. The Tribunal emphasized that the subsidy was aimed at incentivizing industrial growth and was linked to fixed capital investment, thus qualifying as a capital receipt.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remitting the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of the ALP in accordance with the Tribunal's directions and treating the subsidy as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.

---