2024 (1) TMI 697 - AT - Income Tax

Company denied DDT refund under India-Germany treaty as domestic firms cannot claim benefits without specific extension

Schaeffler India Limited, (Earlier known as FAG Bearings India Ltd.) Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (2), Now Circle-1 (1) (1), Vadodara And (Vice-Versa)

Schaeffler India Limited, (Earlier known as FAG Bearings India Ltd.) Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (2), Now Circle-1 (1) (1), ... Issues Involved:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal2. Disallowance of Reimbursement Expense under Section 373. Refund of Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT)4. Interest and Penalty Charges5. Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Royalty6. Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Management FeesSummary:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:The Department's appeal was time-barred by one day. The delay was condoned due to the reasons cited, including the late receipt of the Memorandum of Authorization and a public holiday.2. Disallowance of Reimbursement Expense under Section 37:- Assessee's Appeal (A.Y. 2010-11): The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 31,63,877 under Section 37, arguing that the expenses were incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to produce relevant documents.- Assessee's Appeal (A.Y. 2011-12): Similar to A.Y. 2010-11, the matter was restored to the AO for reconsideration.- Assessee's Appeal (A.Y. 2012-13): No specific disallowance under Section 37 was mentioned for this year.3. Refund of Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT):- Assessee's Appeal (A.Y. 2010-11): The assessee sought a refund of excess DDT paid, arguing that the tax rate should not exceed 10% as per the DTAA between India and Germany. The Tribunal dismissed this ground based on the ITAT Mumbai Special Bench decision in the case of Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., which held that DTAA does not apply to DDT.- Assessee's Appeal (A.Y. 2011-12): Similar grounds and outcome as A.Y. 2010-11.- Assessee's Appeal (A.Y. 2012-13): Similar grounds and outcome as A.Y. 2010-11.- Assessee's Appeal (A.Y. 2013-14): Similar grounds and outcome as A.Y. 2010-11.- Assessee's Appeal (A.Y. 2014-15): Similar grounds and outcome as A.Y. 2010-11.4. Interest and Penalty Charges:The Tribunal did not provide specific adjudication on the grounds related to interest and penalty charges under Sections 234A, 234C, and 234D, as they were general in nature.5. Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Royalty:- Department's Appeal (A.Y. 2010-11): The Department contested the deletion of Rs. 2,13,09,160 adjustment made using the CUP method instead of TNMM. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision favoring the assessee, citing consistency with earlier years where TNMM was used.- Department's Appeal (A.Y. 2011-12): Similar grounds and outcome as A.Y. 2010-11.- Department's Appeal (A.Y. 2012-13): Similar grounds and outcome as A.Y. 2010-11.- Department's Appeal (A.Y. 2013-14): Similar grounds and outcome as A.Y. 2010-11.6. Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Management Fees:- Department's Appeal (A.Y. 2010-11): The Department challenged the deletion of Rs. 6,72,66,305 adjustment for management fees paid to Schaeffler China. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision favoring the assessee, noting that similar fees were accepted in subsequent years without adjustments.- Department's Appeal (A.Y. 2011-12): Similar grounds and outcome as A.Y. 2010-11.- Department's Appeal (A.Y. 2012-13): Similar grounds and outcome as A.Y. 2010-11.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for statistical purposes regarding the disallowance of expenses under Section 37, restoring the matters to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the refund of excess DDT and upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions favoring the assessee on transfer pricing adjustments for both royalty and management fees. The Department's appeals were dismissed.