TNMM working capital adjustment and section 80-IC relief govern receivables, goodwill depreciation, and manufacturing-linked deductions.

Working capital adjustment under TNMM already neutralised the effect of receivables, so no separate notional interest adjustment was warranted. Goodwill acquired on amalgamation was treated as a depreciable intangible asset, while product registration and regulatory approval expenditure was held to be revenue because it facilitated existing business operations without creating a new capital asset. Profits of the eligible industrial undertaking under section 80-IC could not be reduced by hypothetical brand royalty or marketing charges without concrete evidence, scrap income arising from manufacture remained derived from the undertaking, and substantial expansion entitled the assessee to 100% deduction within the statutory framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether notional interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises was separately adjustable where the assessee had benchmarked transactions under TNMM with working capital adjustment; (ii) whether depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was allowable; (iii) whether product registration and regulatory approval expenditure was revenue or capital in nature; (iv) whether profits of the eligible Baddi undertaking under section 80-IC could be reduced by imputing notional brand royalty and marketing charges; (v) whether scrap income formed part of profits derived from the eligible undertaking for section 80-IC deduction; and (vi) whether, after substantial expansion, the assessee was entitled to 100% deduction under section 80-IC.

Issue (i): Whether notional interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises was separately adjustable where the assessee had benchmarked transactions under TNMM with working capital adjustment?

Analysis: Receivables were treated as part of the ordinary commercial stream arising from the principal sale transaction and not as a standalone financing arrangement. The working capital adjustment already reflected the effect of receivables in the comparability analysis under TNMM. Once the assessee's margins, after such adjustment, exceeded those of comparable uncontrolled entities, a further notional interest addition would duplicate the same factor and distort the arm's length analysis. The debt-free position of the assessee also reinforced the absence of any real financing cost.

Conclusion: The adjustment on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was allowable?

Analysis: Goodwill arising on amalgamation was treated as an acquired commercial asset representing business and commercial rights of similar nature. The accounting treatment under the pooling of interest method did not displace the substantive tax treatment under section 32(1)(ii). Goodwill acquired for consideration pursuant to amalgamation was distinguished from self-generated goodwill, and the settled law recognized it as a depreciable intangible asset.

Conclusion: Depreciation on goodwill was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether product registration and regulatory approval expenditure was revenue or capital in nature?

Analysis: Product registration expenditure was incurred to enable statutory compliance and the carrying on of existing pharmaceutical business. It did not create any independent capital asset, transferable right, or new profit-making apparatus. The mere fact that approvals may endure for a period did not convert the expenditure into capital outlay where the dominant purpose remained facilitation of business operations.

Conclusion: The expenditure was revenue in nature and allowable under section 37(1), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether profits of the eligible Baddi undertaking under section 80-IC could be reduced by imputing notional brand royalty and marketing charges?

Analysis: The undertaking's manufacturing activity was accepted as genuine, and the Revenue had not shown any actual royalty arrangement, diversion of profits, or objective material warranting artificial bifurcation of manufacturing profits into brand and production components. The statute did not authorize hypothetical reallocation of profits merely because the business had strong brands or marketing infrastructure. In the absence of tangible evidence justifying invocation of profit apportionment principles, the deduction could not be curtailed on an ad hoc basis.

Conclusion: The reduction of section 80-IC deduction on this basis was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether scrap income formed part of profits derived from the eligible undertaking for section 80-IC deduction?

Analysis: Scrap arose as an inevitable incident of the manufacturing process and bore a direct and immediate nexus with the industrial undertaking. Since the immediate source of the scrap receipts was the manufacturing activity itself, the income partook of the character of profits derived from the eligible undertaking.

Conclusion: Scrap income was eligible for deduction under section 80-IC, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether, after substantial expansion, the assessee was entitled to 100% deduction under section 80-IC?

Analysis: The larger Bench ruling on section 80-IC recognized that substantial expansion can generate a fresh initial assessment year and that 100% deduction may be available within the statutory overall cap. The factual position of substantial expansion was not disputed, and the later authoritative interpretation governed the controversy.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to 100% deduction under section 80-IC, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment, the disallowances on goodwill and product registration expenses, and the Revenue's attempts to restrict section 80-IC relief on brand allocation and scrap income all failed, while the assessee succeeded on the rate of deduction after substantial expansion. The common order therefore granted full relief to the assessee and rejected the Revenue's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where working capital adjustment under TNMM has already neutralized receivables, no separate notional interest adjustment is warranted; acquired goodwill on amalgamation is a depreciable intangible asset; product registration expenditure incurred for statutory compliance is revenue in nature; and profits of an eligible industrial undertaking under section 80-IC cannot be reduced on hypothetical brand allocations absent concrete evidence, while scrap income directly arising from manufacture remains eligible and substantial expansion can trigger 100% deduction within the statutory framework.

---