ITAT rules excluding depreciation from operating costs justified under section 263, delivery expenses not AMP expenditure

ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the assessee on revision proceedings under section 263. The tribunal held that excluding depreciation and amortization expenses from operating costs was justified, following precedent from Amazon Development Centre case. Even if included, the operating margin would remain within prescribed +/-3% range, requiring no addition. The tribunal also determined that delivery and warranty expenses were post-sales activities and not part of AMP expenditure, making the CIT(TP)'s revision unjustified on this issue.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Exclusion of Share-Based Compensation (SBC) and Depreciation and Amortization from Operating Costs.
2. Inclusion of Delivery and Warranty Expenses in Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) Expenses.
3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exclusion of Share-Based Compensation (SBC) and Depreciation and Amortization from Operating Costs:

The primary issue revolves around whether Share-Based Compensation (SBC) in the form of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOP) and depreciation and amortization expenses should be considered as operating expenses. The CIT(TP) argued that these should be included in the operating cost, whereas the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had excluded them, which was challenged as erroneous. The Tribunal noted that the exclusion of SBC as non-operating cost is supported by precedent, specifically referencing the case of Amazon Development Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that ESOP expenses are non-operating expenditures. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that SBC costs are notional and should not be part of the operating expenses for computing operating margins. Regarding depreciation and amortization, the Tribunal observed that these were already included in the operating cost base by the TPO, and even if they were not, the appellant's margin would still fall within the permissible range, thus not prejudicing the revenue.

2. Inclusion of Delivery and Warranty Expenses in AMP Expenses:

The CIT(TP) contended that delivery and warranty expenses should be included in AMP expenses, which the TPO had excluded. The Tribunal found that these expenses are incurred post-sale and are not related to brand promotion, aligning with the appellant's argument. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents, including the Delhi High Court's ruling in Sony Ericson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that selling expenses are not synonymous with brand promotion. The Tribunal concluded that the TPO had conducted sufficient inquiries and correctly excluded these expenses from AMP, thus the CIT(TP) was not justified in revising the order on this issue.

3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) under Section 263:

The Tribunal examined whether the CIT(TP) had the jurisdiction to revise the TPO's order under Section 263. It was argued that the CIT(TP) could not exercise revisionary jurisdiction merely due to a difference in opinion on the inquiries conducted by the TPO. The Tribunal emphasized that the TPO had made detailed inquiries, and the CIT(TP) did not demonstrate a lack of inquiry or verification that would justify revision. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 263, which included orders passed by the TPO under its ambit, was effective only from 01.04.2022, and thus not applicable retrospectively to the order in question. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the CIT(TP) lacked jurisdiction to revise the TPO's order under Section 263 for the assessment year 2017-18.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(TP)'s invocation of Section 263 was not justified on the grounds of SBC and depreciation/amortization expenses, as well as delivery and warranty expenses. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee on these issues, while leaving other legal issues open. The decision underscores the necessity for the CIT(TP) to demonstrate clear errors and prejudice to revenue before exercising revisionary powers, especially when detailed inquiries have been conducted by the TPO.

---