ITAT allows appeal on Section 14A disallowance and transfer pricing adjustments for support services

ITAT Mumbai allowed assessee's appeal on disallowance u/s 14A, finding AO failed to record satisfaction before computing disallowance. On transfer pricing, tribunal excluded two comparables - Axis Integrated Systems Ltd. and Inmacs Management Services Ltd. - for benchmarking support services due to lack of functional comparability and incomplete data. Letters of comfort issued to subsidiaries were held as international transactions with arm's length rate upheld at 0.04%. Various issues including R&D expenditure u/s 35(2AB), damaged stock valuation, additional depreciation, TDS matters, royalty waiver, CSR expenses, and government subsidies were decided following previous tribunal decisions in assessee's favor, maintaining consistency across assessment years.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Transfer pricing adjustment on account of low markup on support services.
3. Transfer pricing adjustment for non-recovery of charges for providing letter of comfort/support.
4. Ad hoc addition on account of non-inclusion of damaged stock in valuation of closing stock.
5. Allowability of expenditure under section 35(2AB) of the Act.
6. Allowance of balance additional depreciation.
7. Allowance of expenditure incurred on the Trip Scheme.
8. Deletion of addition on account of waiver of Royalty received from two subsidiaries.
9. Allowance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses.
10. Sundry balances written off.
11. Deletion of addition of subsidy received from the Government of Maharashtra under Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007.

Summary:

1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record any satisfaction regarding the rejection of the assessee's plea, a prerequisite for invoking section 14A. The AO computed disallowance under Rule 8D without examining the correctness of the assessee's claim. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance made by the AO under section 14A read with Rule 8D.

2. Transfer pricing adjustment on account of low markup on support services:
The Tribunal excluded Axis Integrated Systems Ltd. and Inmacs Management Services Ltd. from the list of comparables, as their business activities were not comparable to the assessee's support services. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO was deleted.

3. Transfer pricing adjustment for non-recovery of charges for providing letter of comfort/support:
The Tribunal upheld that letters of comfort issued by the assessee constitute an international transaction within the meaning of section 92B of the Act. The arm's length rate for letters of comfort was determined at 0.04%, and the Tribunal upheld this rate, dismissing the ground raised by the assessee.

4. Ad hoc addition on account of non-inclusion of damaged stock in valuation of closing stock:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned CIT(A) to restrict the disallowance to 0.5% of the value of closing stock for the purpose of valuation of damaged stock, following the consistent approach adopted in earlier years.

5. Allowability of expenditure under section 35(2AB) of the Act:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the nature of the expenditure disallowed by the DSIR. If the expenditure was incurred for R&D purposes, it should be allowed as a deduction under section 35(2AB).

6. Allowance of balance additional depreciation:
The Tribunal upheld the decision to allow the balance additional depreciation claimed by the assessee for assets purchased in the earlier year, following the consistent approach adopted in earlier years.

7. Allowance of expenditure incurred on the Trip Scheme:
The Tribunal found that the expenditure on the Trip Scheme was for business purposes and not in the nature of commission. The expenditure was allowed as it was closely linked to the assessee's business activity.

8. Deletion of addition on account of waiver of Royalty received from two subsidiaries:
The Tribunal held that the AO had no authority to make an addition of the balance 2% Royalty waived by the assessee, as it was a notional income considered taxable by the AO. The waiver was based on the financial position of the subsidiaries.

9. Allowance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses:
The Tribunal allowed the CSR expenses incurred prior to 01/04/2015 as deductible expenditures, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr.CIT v/s PEC Ltd.

10. Sundry balances written off:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to file necessary details/documents in support of its claim of deduction of sundry balances written off.

11. Deletion of addition of subsidy received from the Government of Maharashtra under Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned CIT(A) that the subsidies received under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007, were capital in nature, following the purpose test as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---