ITAT accepts entity-level transfer pricing benchmarking over unit-level, excludes freight expenses from Section 10A/10B computation

The ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of the assessee on transfer pricing benchmarking, accepting entity-level comparison over unit-level comparison based on consistency principle and identical services across units. The tribunal excluded nine external comparables due to functional dissimilarity, product-based business models, or significant size differences. For Section 10A/10B exemption computation, freight and telecommunication expenses were ordered excluded from both export and total turnover following SC precedent. Civil and tiling expenses were treated as capital expenditure as the assessee had capitalized them. Licensed software expenses remained capital following earlier ITAT precedent. The Section 14A disallowance issue was remanded to AO for fresh consideration without applying Rule 8D.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
2. Re-working of Exemption u/s 10A/10B
3. Capitalization of Civil and Tiling Expenditure
4. Capitalization of Software License Fees
5. Disallowance u/s 14A
6. Levy of Interest u/s 234B

Summary:

Transfer Pricing Adjustment:

The assessee challenged the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 37,69,02,830/- made by the AO. The TPO rejected the entity-level benchmarking done by the assessee and instead made unit-level comparisons, resulting in an upward adjustment for the Bangalore units. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim for entity-level benchmarking, citing legal provisions and judicial rulings, and directed the AO to apply the entity-level approach. However, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim for internal benchmarking with the Mumbai unit due to a lack of functional and economic comparability. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of nine external comparables from the list used by the TPO.

Re-working of Exemption u/s 10A/10B:

The AO excluded certain expenses from the export turnover but not from the total turnover, which reduced the deduction under sections 10A/10B. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the deduction by excluding the expenses from both the export turnover and the total turnover, in line with the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. HCL Technologies and the CBDT Circular No. 4/2018.

Capitalization of Civil and Tiling Expenditure:

The AO treated the expenditure of Rs. 2,88,28,306/- on civil and tiling work as capital expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, referencing Explanation 1 to section 32(1), which treats such expenditures in leasehold premises as capital expenditures eligible for depreciation.

Capitalization of Software License Fees:

The AO treated the cost of Rs. 73,10,920/- incurred towards licensed software as capital expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, following the ITAT Chennai's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 and the Special Bench decision in Amway India Enterprises.

Disallowance u/s 14A:

The AO made a disallowance of Rs. 41,34,428/- under section 14A, computed using Rule 8D. The Tribunal noted that Rule 8D was not applicable for AY 2007-08 as per the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for a fresh consideration, directing a reasonable disallowance de hors Rule 8D.

Levy of Interest u/s 234B:

This ground was not pressed by the assessee during the hearing and was dismissed by the Tribunal.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed, with directions for the AO to modify the assessment order based on the Tribunal's findings and provide necessary opportunities to the assessee for further submissions.

---