TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd adjustment to the arm's length price of international transactions without giving any finding in respect of the action of TPO in exclusion/inclusion of comparables in the facts the circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts relating to the issue on hand are that the Behr India Ltd. (in short 'BIL') is a company incorporated on 28-04-1997. It is engaged in the manufacturing of Automobile Ancillaries, Heat Exchanges i.e. Radiators, Evaporators, Condensers and Automotive Air Conditioning System. It is a Joint Venture ratio of 60:40 between Behr Group, Germany and Anand Group, India. The assessee has undertaken international transactions in the manufacturing segment. It has shown the nature of transactions separately like purchase of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring segment. 4. The main contention of ld. AR, Shri R.D. Onkar is that the CIT(A)/TPO/AO did not give any finding rejecting the comparables. Further, the TPO rejected the comparables Denso India Ltd., Subros Limited and Rexnord Electronics & Controls Limited furnished by the assessee to be uncontrolled external comparables in the course of TP audit and also likewise no finding was given in respect of inclusion of comparables but however the ld. AR agreed that the assessee is satisfied with the aggregation of manufacturing segment as held by the CIT(A)/TPO and the assessee did not question the view of Revenue authorities for A.Y. 2009-10. Thus, it is clear from the assessee's side though the assessee shown the transactions separately in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... towards management incentive bonus in note No. 3 in column No. 21(b) of tax audit report. Vide letter dated 21-01-2014 the AO requested the assessee why the said amount should not be disallowed u/s. 43B of the Act. It was explained by the assessee vide letter dated 23- 01-2014 the assessee paid management incentive bonus on the basis of performance to the eligible employees and claimed the said amount is not covered under the payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Further, it was claimed the payment is based on the performance measured on the key parameters assigned to employees to achieve certain goals and in the incentive bonus is normally paid in the month of January for the earlier calendar year. Provision for such payment is made during January ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the company. This is absolutely separate from the bonus given to employees. The case law that has been placed before us i.e. judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra.), had also been placed before the Revenue Authorities. However, they have strictly gone into interpreting the nomenclature of the terms of good work reward and have held that this case is distinguishable in facts with regard to the case of the assessee where it is a question of giving incentive bonus. This observation of the Revenue Authorities is incorrect since the facts on records clearly demonstrates that the issue of bonus as well as issue of MIBP are in altogether different terms and con....