2024 (6) TMI 814 - AT - Income Tax

Conditional stay granted in transfer pricing case worth Rs. 37.31 crores without 20% deposit requirement

M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle–2 (1), Bangalore.

M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle–2 (1), Bangalore. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Stay of outstanding tax demand for AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22.2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments.3. Disallowance of Royalty and Debugging Expenses.4. Alleged Bill of Material (BoM) Cost Inflation.5. Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts.Detailed Analysis:1. Stay of Outstanding Tax Demand:The assessee filed stay petitions seeking the stay of outstanding tax demands of INR 19,95,68,06,291/- for AY 2020-21 and INR 17,36,59,96,491/- for AY 2021-22, which include disputed tax and interest under sections 234B & 234C. The Tribunal granted the stay, noting that the revenue's interests were already protected by the provisional attachment of the assessee's bank accounts totaling INR 3,700 crores. The Tribunal ordered that no further payment or security was required as long as the attachment continued.2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments:The adjustments were made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) using both the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) and a transaction-by-transaction approach. The TPO proposed adjustments of INR 1841,61,19,170 for AY 2020-21 and INR 2202,48,64,440 for AY 2021-22. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the TPO's approach, as the TPO cherry-picked methods to maximize adjustments. The Tribunal upheld the use of TNMM but criticized the TPO for not granting adjustments in accordance with TNMM.3. Disallowance of Royalty and Debugging Expenses:The TPO and AO disallowed royalty payments to Qualcomm and Xiaomi Mobile, as well as debugging expenses, arguing they were not for business purposes. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided detailed explanations and documentation to support these expenses. The Tribunal found that the AO's disallowances were duplicative, as the TPO had already tested these expenses during transfer pricing proceedings.4. Alleged Bill of Material (BoM) Cost Inflation:The AO proposed adjustments for alleged BoM cost inflation, claiming that component costs supplied by overseas AEs were marked up. The Tribunal noted that this adjustment was duplicative, as the TPO had already tested the distribution segment, including purchase costs. The Tribunal found that the AO's adjustment was based on surmises and conjectures and ordered a reduction in the disallowance.5. Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts:The Tribunal noted that the assessee's bank accounts totaling INR 3,700 crores were provisionally attached by the Income Tax Authority and Enforcement Directorate. The Tribunal found that this attachment was sufficient to protect the revenue's interests and granted the stay based on this security. The Tribunal also noted that the Karnataka High Court had set aside a previous provisional attachment order, but a new attachment order was issued, which was also under challenge.Conclusion:The Tribunal granted the stay of outstanding tax demands for AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22, noting that the revenue's interests were already protected by the provisional attachment of the assessee's bank accounts. The Tribunal criticized the TPO's inconsistent approach in transfer pricing adjustments and found that the AO's disallowances were duplicative and based on conjectures. The Tribunal ordered a reduction in the BoM cost inflation adjustment and upheld the provisional attachment as sufficient security for the outstanding demands.