AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The learned ACIT pursuant to the directions of the learned DRP erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in disregarding the benchmarking of manufacturing activity done by the Appellant following "aggregation of transactions" approach using third party comparable companies whilst following "aggregation of transactions" approach himself using internal "comparables"). B. International Transaction relating to export of 1C Engines 2. Rejection of benchmarking done by the Appellant: 2.1 The learned ACIT pursuant to the directions of the learned DRP erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in rejecting the external comparable companies selected by the Appellant for benchmarking the manufacturing function. 3. Inappropriate comparison of profitability between "export to Associated Enterprises (AEs)" segment and "domestic sales" segment ignoring differences in Functions, Assets and Risks (FAR), differences in products sold and comparison of controlled transactions with controlled transactions 3.1 The learned ACIT pursuant to the directions of the learned DRP erred in law and on the facts and in circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Technical Know-how 6. Inappropriate approach adopted by TPO m benchmarking payment of technical know-how fees to associated enterprises 6.1 The learned ACIT pursuant to the directions of the learned DRP erred in facts and in circumstances of the case in determining the value of the international transaction of payment of technical know-how as 'Nil', challenging the basis of transaction itself. 6.2 The learned ACIT pursuant to the directions of the learned DRP erred in facts and in circumstances of the case in determining the value of the international transaction of payment of technical know-how as 'Nil' without applying any of the prescribed methods under section 92C(2) of the Act. 6.3 The learned ACIT pursuant to the directions of the learned DRP erred in facts and in circumstances of the case in treating Rs. 8,86,15,435 as "income" of the Appellant while the aforesaid amount is accounted as "Capital Work in Progress", pending capitalization. Consequently no depreciation is claimed in the return of income for the assessment year 2007-08. 6.4 The learned ACIT pursuant to the directions of the learned DRP erred in facts and in ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as a revenue expenditure. 9.3 Without prejudice to above, the H'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Pune and the learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing amortization @ 1/5th of the total expenditure on global sourcing consideration every year for the specified period of five years for which the Agreement was entered into. 10. Disallowance of expenses under section 14A 10.1 The learned ACIT pursuant to the directions of the learned DRP erred in disallowing an amount of Rs. 16,84,392/- as incurred in relation to exempt income u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10.2 The learned ACIT pursuant to the directions of the learned URP erred in not appreciating that there was no dominant and immediate connection between the expenditure incurred and exempted income and therefore there cannot be any adhoc disallowance out of general expenses. They erred in not following the ratio of the following decisions: a) CIT v Hero Cycles Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P & H) b) CIT v Printers House (P.) Ltd (2010) 188 Taxman 70 (Delhi) c) ITO v M/s. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (SB-Mum ITAT) d) CIT v General Insurance Corpor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 231 Taxman 113 (Delhi) / 374 ITR 118 (Del). He further pointed out that the balance grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment year 2006-07. 4. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, pointed out that in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) vide para 89 of the judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that for comparison of margins, internal comparable was preferable. He stressed that where the assessee was operating both in domestic segment and export, then following the dictate of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, where aggregation of transactions has been accepted, then internal comparables were the best to be compared with. He further stated that in any case the cost of goods had been taken and the Tribunal had directed that net profit be applied. In this regard, he placed reliance on the orders of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). He further placed reliance on the order of TPO in respect of ground of appeal No.4. 5. The learned Authorized Representat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised in the present appeal is whether the assessee can adopt aggregation approach to benchmark its international transactions i.e. group together all the transactions with its associated enterprises which relate to manufacturing activity in HHC division. Similar issue of aggregation of closely interlinked transactions and benchmarking of international transactions applying TNNM method as the most appropriate method arose before the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment year 2005-06. The ratio laid down by the Tribunal in assessment year 2005-06 was further applied by the Tribunal in assessment year 2006-07. The first issue which was addressed by the Tribunal in assessment year 2006-07 was the aggregation approach, whether to be applied or not. The Tribunal after deliberating on the said issue in paras 14 and 15 and making reference to the order of Tribunal dated 31.12.2014 relating to assessment year 2005-06 i.e. entity which was engaged in after market support for IC engines sold by Cummins entity, held as under:- "16. The assessee for the year under consideration before us is engaged in the manufacturing activity along with other related activities and had agg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iple of aggregation of closely linked transactions for undertaking benchmarking analysis applying TNNM method has been approved by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 374 ITR 118 (Del). Accordingly, we hold that for benchmarking international transactions, various activities undertaken by the assessee under the head „manufacturing activities‟ need to be aggregated. The Assessing Officer / TPO is directed so." 9. The Tribunal thus, held that where various activities were so interlinked to the export of manufactured IC engines, then the said international transactions undertaken by the assessee for the year under consideration need to be aggregated for undertaking benchmarking analysis applying TNNM method. The Tribunal in this regard placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). Following the same principle and where the assessee was engaged in similar activity of manufacturing, we hold that various activities need to be aggregated. Accordingly, we direct so. 10. The second issue which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgins of controlled transactions has to be compared with net profit margins of uncontrolled transactions, whereas the TPO has applied gross profit margins." 11. Thereafter, the Tribunal did not decide the issue of application of TNNM method and comparison with external comparables on the ground that the similar issue in assessment year 2005-06 was withdrawn by the assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before us has pointed out that in assessment year 2005-06 and even in assessment year 2006-07, once the aggregation approach is applied in the case of assessee, no adjustment needs to be made to the arm's length price of international transactions and consequently, the comparison of net margins earned by the assessee to be compared with the margins of uncontrolled transactions of external comparables became academic in nature, hence, the same was dismissed. It is not the case that the assessee had not pressed the above said ground of appeal but the same were dismissed because they were academic in nature. However, he further pointed out that once the aggregation approach is adopted by the assessee is accepted, then the profit margins earned by the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any, in the hands of assessee on account of international transactions. It may be pointed herein itself that the adjustments were made in the hands of assessee in HHP division and no adjustment was made in LHP division. Consequently, the grounds of appeal No.1.1, 2 and 3 are decided as indicated above. 13. Before parting, we may also mention that another aspect of transfer pricing adjustment was whether gross margins earned from the sale of IC engines in the domestic market are to be compared with the gross margins earned by the assessee from export of IC engines to associated enterprises. The Tribunal vide para 18 had laid down that the comparison of gross margins was not envisaged under the Income Tax Rules and the net margins have to be applied. However, we have already held in the paras hereinabove that the margins of assessee are to be benchmarked against average margins of external concerns which are functionally comparable and consequently, this issue becomes academic in nature. However, the TPO is directed to apply the net profit margins earned by the assessee for benchmarking international transactions. 14. The next issue raised vide ground of appeal No.4 is agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacturing activity' and consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to compute arm's length price of international transactions after aggregating the international transactions undertaken by the assessee under the head 'manufacturing activity'. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are in paras 24 and 25 at page 31 of the order and following the same parity of reasoning, we hold so. The grounds of appeal No.6 and 7 are thus, allowed. 18. The ground of appeal No.8 raised by the assessee is against re-working of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 19. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act at Rs. 11.34 crores in respect of profits derived by its industrial undertaking located at Daman. The Assessing Officer allocated part of head office expenses, directors' salary, sitting fees and commission, etc. to the activities of Daman unit and re-computed the profits of eligible business and consequently, reduced deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act. 20. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee fairly pointed out that the issue stands covered against the assessee by the order of Tribu....