Foreign travel expenses allowed under section 37(1) as disallowance violated unilateral APA terms with CBDT

The ITAT Chandigarh upheld CIT(A)'s decision allowing foreign travel expenses under section 37(1), ruling that AO's disallowance violated the unilateral APA entered with CBDT. The assessee had complied with APA terms and demonstrated expense recovery from associated enterprises with corresponding revenue reporting. However, the tribunal dismissed cross-objections regarding interest under section 234C as non-maintainable due to lack of grounds before CIT(A). Interest under section 234B was upheld on differential between advance tax paid and assessed tax, despite the APA settlement, as the assessee remained liable for shortfall between advance tax and total assessed tax liability.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Deletion of addition of foreign travel expenses under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act on additional income assessed pursuant to the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition of Foreign Travel Expenses:

The primary issue in the Revenue's appeal was the deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,21,58,400/- related to foreign travel expenses, which the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The AO argued that the expenses were not the responsibility of the assessee company but were related to its US-based counterparts, M/s SF Inc. USA and Fidelity Information Services Inc. USA. The AO maintained that the foreign travel expenses were not incurred in the ordinary course of business and were not reimbursed by the foreign clients as claimed by the assessee. The AO further noted that similar disallowances were upheld in previous assessment years.

The assessee contended that the foreign travel expenses were incurred for providing on-site software development services to its associated enterprises (AEs) and were reimbursed on a cost-plus 15% basis, as per the service agreements. The assessee provided detailed evidence, including employee-wise travel details and confirmations from customers, to substantiate its claim.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the decision of the Coordinate Bench for earlier years (A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13), which had ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the foreign travel expenses were part of the cost on which a markup was charged to the AEs, and thus, were incurred wholly for business purposes under Section 37(1). The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated the recovery of these expenses from its AEs, and the APA with the CBDT confirmed the cost-plus markup arrangement.

2. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:

The assessee filed a cross-objection challenging the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C on additional income assessed pursuant to the APA. The assessee argued that the interest should not be levied as the additional income was determined after the close of the financial year, making it impossible to estimate and pay advance tax on it. The assessee cited a recent decision by the Delhi Tribunal, which supported its position.

The Tribunal, however, dismissed the cross-objection. It noted that the assessee had already computed and paid interest under Sections 234B and 234C in its modified return of income filed pursuant to the APA. The Tribunal emphasized that the levy of interest is consequential and arises due to the shortfall in advance tax payment compared to the assessed tax. It held that even if the additional income was determined post the financial year, it still formed part of the assessed tax, and the assessee was liable to pay interest on the shortfall. The Tribunal distinguished the case from those where there was a complete failure to pay advance tax, noting that the assessee had paid a substantial amount as advance tax.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order on the deletion of foreign travel expenses and dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding interest levy, thereby dismissing both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection.

---