Partial Win in Tax Appeal: Deduction Approved for J&K Unit, UPS Depreciation Reassessed, Other Claims Dismissed.

The appeal was partly allowed, with the assessee succeeding on the claim of deduction under Section 80IB(4) for its Jammu & Kashmir Unit, and the issue of depreciation on UPS equipment being remanded for reworking at the appropriate rate. The grounds related to the transfer pricing adjustment for management service charges and depreciation on electrical installations were dismissed, upholding the determinations of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the lower authorities.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of management service charges paid by the assessee to its AE.
2. Assessee's Claim of Deduction u/s 80IB(4).
3. Depreciation on UPS.
4. Depreciation on electrical installation.

Summary:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of management service charges paid by the assessee to its AE:

The assessee carried out international transactions with its AE, including payment of management service charges. The Ld. TPO questioned the payment of these charges, noting that such payments were not made in earlier years and that the profit margins had decreased. The TPO rejected the assessee's aggregation approach and benchmarked the transactions separately under CUP method, determining the ALP of management service charges as 'Nil'. The Ld. DRP endorsed this view. The Tribunal concurred with the TPO's observations, stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate the receipt of services, the necessity for such services, and the benefit derived from them. Consequently, the determination of ALP as 'Nil' was upheld, and the corresponding grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

2. Assessee's Claim of Deduction u/s 80IB(4):

The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(4) for profits earned from its Jammu & Kashmir Unit. The Ld. AO, relying on a report from the ACIT, Jammu, concluded that the assessee's activities did not amount to manufacturing but were merely blending and mixing of ingredients. The Ld. DRP concurred, citing various judicial precedents. However, the Tribunal noted that the Central Excise Department had accepted the assessee's activities as manufacturing, and the definition of 'manufacture' u/s 2(29BA) was broader. The Tribunal also referred to various judicial decisions supporting the assessee's claim. Consequently, the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IB(4) was allowed.

3. Depreciation on UPS:

The assessee claimed higher depreciation of 60% on UPS equipment. The Ld. AO treated the UPS as Plant & Machinery and allowed depreciation at 15%. The Tribunal opined that if UPS is used along with a computer system, it should be eligible for the same rate of depreciation as applicable to the computer system. The Ld. AO was directed to rework the depreciation accordingly, and the corresponding grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.

4. Depreciation on electrical installation:

The assessee claimed depreciation on electrical installations at 15%. The Ld. AO treated these as electrical fittings and allowed depreciation at 10%. The Ld. DRP confirmed this view. The Tribunal agreed, stating that electrical installations are part of electrical fittings and do not constitute Plant & Machinery. Consequently, the corresponding grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed, with the assessee succeeding on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(4) and the issue of depreciation on UPS being remanded for reworking. The grounds related to transfer pricing adjustment and depreciation on electrical installations were dismissed.

---