TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants relief on expenses, transfer pricing adjustments, and forex treatment</h1> <h3>M/s. FMC India Pvt. Ltd., Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) (1), Bangalore.</h3> M/s. FMC India Pvt. Ltd., Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) (1), Bangalore. - TMI Issues Involved: Incorrect interpretation of law, disallowance of vehicle registration and other expenses, excess disallowance on account of interest on finance lease, disallowance of product development expenses, transfer pricing adjustments, inclusion/exclusion of comparables, working capital adjustment, foreign exchange revenue filter, treatment of foreign exchange fluctuation loss, computation of ALP, and revised computation of income.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Incorrect Interpretation of Law:The assessee contended that the order by the AO/CIT(A) was based on an incorrect interpretation of law and should be quashed. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue separately, implying it was subsumed under the detailed grounds of appeal.2. Disallowance of Vehicle Registration and Other Expenses:The AO/CIT(A) treated INR 2,04,289 spent on RTO charges and vehicle transfer charges as capital expenditure, not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat these expenses as capital in nature but allowed depreciation. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow INR 25,000 incurred as earnest money deposit for business purposes.3. Excess Disallowance on Account of Interest on Finance Lease:The assessee claimed an excess disallowance of INR 4,95,359 on interest on finance lease. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to consider the revised return and compute the loss as declared by the assessee.4. Disallowance of Product Development Expenses:The CIT(A) disallowed INR 3,28,45,694 as capital expenditure. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, referencing the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15, where the expenses were incurred for expanding the existing line of business and should be treated as revenue expenditure.5. Transfer Pricing Adjustments:The CIT(A) upheld the AO/TPO's order regarding the economic analysis and determination of the ALP. The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee, directing the AO/TPO to restrict transfer pricing adjustments to transactions with Associated Enterprises and to consider the correct impact of foreign exchange fluctuation.6. Inclusion/Exclusion of Comparables:The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of Bharat Insecticides Ltd. and Bharat Rasayan Ltd. as comparables but directed the AO to exclude Rallis India Ltd. due to functional dissimilarity. The Tribunal also directed the AO to rectify errors in computing the margins of Bharat Insecticides Ltd.7. Working Capital Adjustment:The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO/TPO to compute the working capital adjustment on actuals, referencing the principles laid down in the case of Huawei Technologies India (P.) Ltd. vs. JCIT.8. Foreign Exchange Revenue Filter:The Tribunal noted the inconsistency in adopting the foreign exchange revenue filter and remanded the issue to the AO/TPO to consider a consistent approach for selecting the range of this filter.9. Treatment of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss:The Tribunal directed the AO to treat the foreign exchange loss related to ECB loans as non-operating in the hands of the assessee, referencing multiple judicial precedents supporting the exclusion of abnormal forex losses from operating margins.10. Computation of ALP:The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to restrict the transfer pricing adjustment to the international transactions relating to import of raw materials and finished goods entered with its A.Es, following the decisions in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Addl. CIT and CIT v. Tara Jewels Exports (P.) Ltd.11. Revised Computation of Income:The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to consider the revised return filed by the assessee, following the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT.Conclusion:The Tribunal provided a detailed analysis and directions on each issue, allowing some grounds, remanding others for fresh consideration, and upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions where appropriate. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal filed by the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.
TaxTMI 