TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es with reference to order of authorities below for the A.Y. 2006-07. 4. Apropos issue of Transfer Pricing Adjustment 4.1 The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary company of Haier Electrical Appliances Corp. Ltd., China and is engaged in the business of distribution of consumer durables, e.g., air conditioner, refrigerator, washing machine, television etc. In the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the assessee has entered into certain international transaction. The Assessing Officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act. In its transfer pricing report the assessee has shown only following international transaction with the associated enterprises. i) Purchase of finished products from the overseas associated enterprise ("the AE") HAH (HK) Company Ltd.,Hong Kong amounting to Rs. 41.66 crores for the purpose of distribution / resale in India. ii) Purchase of capital items of Rs. 1,95,97,166/-. The TPO found the above two international transactions in order. On verification, the TPO noticed following further international transactions with its AE were not reported in From 3CEB and transfer pricing report:- i) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nics India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Noida bearing I.T.A. No. 5140/Del/2011 to decide as to whether the Assessing Officer /TPO was justified in Transfer Pricing Adjustment in relation to the Advt., marketing and promotion expenses incurred by the Assessee. The Assessee also intervened before the Special Bench. The Special Bench recently pronounced its order dated 15.1.2013. The Special Bench in principle held that benchmarking of AMP expenses expense being an international transaction was permissible under the TP regulations. The matter was sent back to the TPO to re-adjudicate the ALP in light of the factors enumerated in the order. 6.1 Ld. Counsel of the assessee has further submitted that the Special bench has concluded that expenditure in connection with sale, which do not lead to brand promotion cannot be brought within the ambit of AMP expenses for determining the cost / value of international transaction. It has further been submitted that expenses amounting to Rs. 55,63,47,480/- are expenses incurred in connection with sale and do not lead to any brand promotion. It has been submitted that after excluding the aforesaid selling expenses aggregating to Rs. 55,63,4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vt. Ltd. by following observations: "7.19. Here it is relevant to note that the Finance Act, 2012 introduced sub-sec. (2C) along with sub-sec. (2B) of section 92CA. Whereas sub-section (2B) has been made retrospectively applicable from 1.6.2002, sub-section (2C) has been given effect from 1-7-2012. The reason is obvious when we see the contents of both the provisions. Under sub-section (2C), the power of the AO to make assessment or reassessment U/S 147 or pass order U/S 154 to enhance the assessment completed before 1-7-2012, has been curtailed to the extent the subject matter is covered by sub-section (2B). It shows that abundant caution has been taken by the legislature in not disturbing the finality of the assessment due to retrospective operation of sub- section (2B) in cases set out in sub-section (2C). The acceptance of the contention of the ld. AR to consider sub-section (2B) as prospective, would not only make sub-section (2B) but sub-section (2C) also as dormant and non-existent. Obviously an interpretation which makes a valid piece of legislation as redundant, does not merit acceptance. The purpose intended to be achieved in validating the jurisdiction of the TPO on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actions as invalid. Here again we find ourselves in respectful disagreement with the submission. What sub- sec. (1) requires is that the AO should seek previous approval of the Commissioner in respect of the transactions for which he is making reference to the TPO. There is no requirement of previous approval of the Commissioner in respect of the international transactions which come to the notice of the TPO during the course of proceedings before him. The prerequisite of seeking approval of the Commissioner is incorporated in sub-sec. (1) alone and the same cannot be read into sub- secs. (2A) and (2B) by the doctrine of incorporation. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pawan Kumar Laddha [(2010) 324ITR 324 (SC)). 7.22. Now we take up the contention raised by the Id. counsel for some of the interveners on harmoniously interpreting sub-section (2B) by limiting its scope only to such transactions which the assessee perceives as international transactions but fails to report. We are not convinced with such interpretation. A line of distinction sought to be drawn by. the ld. counsel between two types of international transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd is thus sans merits and is hereby rejected. We want to clarify that the above discussion has been made only to deal with the contention raised on behalf of some of the interveners. But for that, it is only academic in so far as we are concerned with the present appeal involving the A.Y. 2007-08, which is a period anterior to A.Y. 2012-13. The extant case is fully and directly covered under sub- section (2B) of section 92CA. In that view of the matter, it becomes evident that no fault can be found with the jurisdiction of the TPO to process the transaction under reference." .......... 14.21. Thus it is palpable that all the three necessary ingredients as culled out from a bare reading of section 92B are fully satisfied in the present case. There is a transaction of creating and improving marketing intangibles by the assessee for and on behalf of its foreign AE; the foreign AE is non-resident; such transaction is in the nature of provision of service. Resultantly, we hold that the Revenue authorities were fully justified in treating the transaction of brand building an international transaction in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 7.3. Since it is a very lengthy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy received from Singapore to meet the AMP expenses. While dictating this order, we came across the ITAT Chandigarh Bench decision in the case of M/s Glaxo Smitkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. for A.Y. 2007-08, which came across nearly similar type of situation, where such type of selling expense were excluded from the AMP expenses at the ITAT level itself. The relevant extract is as under: "27. The plea of the assessee before us was that expenses aggregating Rs. 5500.86 lacs are expense incurred in connection with sale and do not lead to brand promotion as held by the Special Bench. After excluding the aforesaid selling expenses aggregating to Rs. 5500.86 lacs, the remaining expense of Rs. 8679.75 lacs (consisting of 6.87% of the total sales) only is required to be considered for the purpose of benchmarking analysis as undertaken by the TPO. The learned DR for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. The claim of the assessee is that the total AMP expenditure considered by the TPO while determining the ALP included certain expense which are in relation to the sales made by the assessee and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision in LG Electronics (Supra). Respectfully following the Special Bench decision the legal grounds were decided against the assessee and as a consequence thereof the relevant ground raised in the memo of appeal, touching the legal grounds were dismissed. Following the same ratio, we also dismiss the legal grounds raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal. 6.5 It has further been deduced in the Tribunal decision in Canon India (Supra) and Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healtcare Ltd. (Supra) that as per the above decision of the Special Bench, the expenditure relating to sales do not lead to the brand promotion and thus cannot be brought within the ambit of advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses for determining the cost / value of the international transaction. The expenditure other than selling expenses with regard to advertisement and marketing and publicity expenses were sent back to the file of the Assessing Officer /TPO to decide the issue of AMP expense by applying the proper comparables after hearing the assessee and keeping in view the Special Bench directions in this behalf. 6.6 Now the ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted before us the details of AMP exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2,448,512 2,448,512 Total 197,603,757 116,831,407 80,772,350 Total discount and volume rebate 47,81,98,044 47,81,98,044 Total considered by TPO 675,801,800 6.7 From the above, we find that it is the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that expenditure amounting to Rs. 55,63,47,480/- for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 55,89,70,394/- for A.Y. 2007-08 are in connection with the selling expenses and should not be considered as AMP expenditure. 6.8 We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. In principle we agree with the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that in light of the Special Bench decision selling expenses are incurred in connection with the sales and do not lead to brand promotion. However, we note that observation about the veracity of the description and the amount involved in this case is not emanating from the orders of the authorities below. Under the circumstances, in our considered opinion, interest of justice will be served, if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer /TPO with the following directions:- i) Expenditure in connection wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 17.8.2010 in I.T.A. No. 956/2010. He further submitted that the DRP, too in the assessee's case for assessment year 2008-09 deleted similar disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 10.1 We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the Tribunal in assessee's own case in I.T.A. No. 294/Del/2008 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 12.6.2009 has held as under:- "5. We have duly considered the rival contention and gone through the record carefully. As far as the nature of expenses is concerned there is no dispute, that expenses are revenue in nature because Assessing Officer himself has allowed deduction to the extent of 1/5th of the total expenses. The facts of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jayparabolic Springs Ltd. relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are similar to that of the assessee. In that case assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and marketing of spring and spring leaves required for the automobile industry. The assessee has incurred a sum of Rs. 19,48,125/- as expenditure on account of customer introduction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court held that the present appeal stands dismissed. 12. From the above, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee as in assessee's own case it was held that the expenditure involved was of revenue in nature. Hence, any question of disallowance does not arise. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent, as above, we set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 13. Apropos issue of Deduction for a sum of Rs. 1,01,02,335/- On this issue Assessing Officer observed that assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 1,01,02,335/- as fixed assets written off. Assessing Officer made enquiry in this regard. In reply, the assessee submitted that these assets were Glow Sign Boards which were capitalized in the books of accounts under the head 'furniture and fixtures. Since these Glow Sign Boards were damaged, the assessee company wrote off WDV of such Glow Sign Boards amounting to Rs. 1,01,02,335/- 13.1 Assessing Officer observed that the assessee's submissions were considered and found to be unacceptable. He observed that assessee should have applied the provisions of section 32(1)(iii) for treating these damages....