ITAT allows withdrawal of transfer pricing grounds after MAP resolution under Rule 44G(6), partly allows Section 14A appeal

ITAT Mumbai allowed assessee's withdrawal of transfer pricing grounds regarding royalty allocation adjustment following MAP resolution between Indian and UK Competent Authorities under Rule 44G(6). The tribunal dismissed grounds 2-6 based on CBDT communication dated 11.10.2023 confirming MAP agreement on R&D services transaction with UK associated enterprise. For Section 14A disallowance, ITAT partly allowed assessee's appeal, directing AO to restrict disallowance to extent of exempt income earned, following Bombay HC precedent in Nirved Traders case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of allocation of Royalty earned by Unilever
2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of allocation of Royalty earned by Unilever:
The appeal was against the Assessing Officer's order related to the allocation of royalty earned by Unilever to the assessee company for providing scientific and technical services. Grounds 2 to 6 raised issues regarding significant functions performed by the assessee, arm's length pricing, and allocation of gross royalty. The assessee applied for resolution under Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) with the UK, leading to the withdrawal of these grounds based on a CBDT letter dated 11.10.2023. The DR did not object, and the grounds were dismissed. This issue was resolved through the MAP process, resulting in the withdrawal of the TP grounds by the assessee.

2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
Grounds 7 to 12 challenged the AO's disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D concerning tax-free dividend income. The assessee argued for restricting the disallowance to the extent of exempt income, citing relevant court decisions. The judgment referred to decisions by various High Courts emphasizing that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that the disallowance under section 14A need not surpass the assessee's exempt income. Consequently, the AO was directed to limit the disallowance to Rs. 12,500, which was the amount of exempt income. Therefore, the appeal on this issue was partly allowed, and the overall appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the two main issues of transfer pricing adjustment and disallowance under section 14A, providing detailed analysis and referencing relevant legal principles and court decisions to arrive at a reasoned decision in favor of the assessee on both issues.

---