TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to each other: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer: A. Grounds of appeal in respect of Transfer pricing adjustment Ground No.1-Transfer pricing adjustment should be deleted as being bad in law Erred in making the reference to the TPO without proper application of mind to the facts on records, without recording his reasons for any necessity or expediency, without legal and valid approval of CIT and ignoring the conditions stipulated in section 92C(3)/92CA(1) and hence, the same is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The transfer pricing adjustment and the Transfer Pricing Order passed should be quashed as being bad in law or illegal or void ab initio. Ground No.2 - General ground related to Transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs. 110,33.85,000 Erred in law and in circumstances by not considering the transfer pricing analysis documented in transfer pricing report for A Y 2012-13. Ground No.3 - Rejecting the combined transaction approach Erred in law and in facts by rejecting the combined transaction approach adopted by the Appellant at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the excess custom duty paid on imports by Appellant vis-a-vis comparable companies Erred on the facts of the case and in law by computing the operating margin of the Appellant without taking into consideration the excess custom duty paid on imports by MB India. Ground No. 11 - Computation of operating margin of the Appellant at entity level, without excluding additional cost on account of abnormal foreign exchange rate movement Erred on the facts of the case and in law by computing the operating margin of MB India without factoring the effect of abnormal foreign exchange movement on its total cost. Ground No. 12 - Computation of operating margin of MB India at entity level without excluding extra-ordinary expenses on account of excess demurrage/detention charges and litigation claim Erred on the facts of the case and in law by computing the operating margin of the Appellant at entity level without excluding extra-ordinary demurrage and litigation expenses incurred by MB India. Ground No. 13 - Transfer pricing adjustment to be limited to the international transactions with AEs only (without prejudice ground) Erred in fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....models which will be sold in few numbers and may not be currently viable to manufacture in India but important to offer entire range to the customers. With respect to activity of import of CBUs, MB India wishes to submit that MB India manufactures S- Class, E-Class and C-Class range of Mercedes-Benz passenger cars in India. In addition to manufacturing operations, MB India also imports certain Mercedes-Benz models in the niche segment for resale in India. With respect to activity of import of CBUs, MB India wishes to submit that MB India manufactures S- Class, E-Class and C-Class range of Mercedes-Benz passenger cars in India. In addition to manufacturing operations, MB India also imports certain Mercedes-Benz models in the niche segment for resale in India. Such imports are restricted to models not manufactured by MB India as, given the current demand, it is not commercially sustainable to manufacture the same. Such import of CBUs is carried out with the view to cater and maintain the markets for the Mercedes-Benz models which are not manufactured by MB India. This ensures that the customer continues to use Mercedes-Benz cars and could be targeted for local manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which were not originally visualized, then in such case MB India would provide for replacement of spare parts. MB India provides warranty for 2 years and additionally for 1 year at no extra cost. Further, MB India provides extended warranty for fourth year on payment, under Star Care Program. This warranty is administered through dealers who addresses the warranty claims of the customers and resolves the same. The dealer recovers the warranty charges (i.e. cost of labour + cost of the spare parts replaced/ repaired + applicable taxes) from MB India. Further as per the dealership agreement, it is clearly evident that * As per Article 2, Para 1, MB India provides spares parts and accessories to the dealers in respect of cars manufactured as well as imported as CBUs. * Further, as per Article 6, Para 6.2, dealer is responsible to ensure that the warranty claims with respect to the goods are settled properly and without delay and the warranty work shall consist either of replacement or repair of parts. * Also, as per Article 6, para 6.4, the dealer shall use only the spare parts supplied by MB India in repairing and maintaining the car manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als, import of spare parts, import of Completely Built Units ('CBUs'), import of capital goods, payment of royalty, payment for technical services availed, receipt of commission, reimbursement/ recovery of expenses, recovery of warranty, etc., with its Associated Enterprise ('AE') for AY 2012-13. MB India is primarily engaged in manufacturing activity for which it imports raw material, capital goods and makes payment for services / know-how. Further, as a part of its manufacturing and sales activity it needs to: a) import CBUs which are not locally manufactured which provides the customers access to the global range of cars and thereby build its customer base for potential sale of locally manufactured cars; and b) Service its customers in respect of the cars manufactured in India as well as the cars imported as CBUs, for which it imports spares for after sale services and warranty commitments. (a) Since the above transactions are germane to the main business of MB India viz manufacturing of passenger cars, the said international transactions were considered as being closely linked as a part of MB India's manufacturing activity and accordingly, have been aggrega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidering Indian companies engaged in the manufacturing of cars after eliminating the companies having related party transactions ('RPT') more than 25% were submitted vide submission dated 29 September 2015. The following companies were identified as comparable to the assessee: Sr. No Name of the company Operating margin FY 201112 1 Force Motors Ltd 2.99% 2 Hindustan Motors Ltd -22.03% 3 Premier Ltd - Automotive Segment 3.14% Arithmetic Mean -5.30% (e) The arithmetic mean of operating margin of comparable companies worked to -5.30% as against unadjusted MB India's margin of 0.04% (rejected the non-operating items considered by MB India resulting into reduction of operating margin from 1.27% as per TP Study report) at entity level and accordingly, since the unadjusted margins earned by MB India were higher than the arithmetic mean of the comparable companies, the international transactions was concluded to be at arm's length price. (f) However, the learned TPO rejected the Indian comparable companies (Force Motor Limited and Hindustan Motor Limited) identified by appellant and added Tata Motors and Mahindra and Mahindra as com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he revised operating margin of Appellant, post direction works out to 0.58%. (c) For other grounds raised by assessee, the Hon'ble DRP upheld the contentions of TPO. The summary of transfer pricing adjustment, post DRP directions is tabulated below: Sr. No. Particulars AY 2012-13 (Rs) 1 Adjustment pertaining to CBU segment 53,81,00,000 2 Adjustment at entity level 56,52,85,000 Total 110,33,85,000 (d) Further, the Ld. AO in its Draft Assessment Order disallowed the royalty expenditure of INR 12,51,11,877 by considering it to be a capital expenditure. The Ld. AO relied on the assessment orders for AY 2004-05 to AY 2011-12 where similar disallowances were made. Reliance was also placed on the Hon'ble DRP's directions pertaining to AY 2007-08 to AY 2011-12 where the disallowances were upheld by the Hon'ble DRP. (e) Similarly, the Ld. AO also disallowed the expenditure incurred on Homologation amounting to INR 2,34,85,773 by considering it to be a capital expenditure. 7. That referring to the grounds of appeal filed in the appeal memo, learned Senior Counsel submitted that ground Nos. 1 and 2 are general grounds. Ground No. 3 is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd risks undertaken for these two segments of Assessee's business is same as because the Assessee has to assess the requirement of spare parts and those of CBUs and accordingly place orders with their principals and sell it to dealers. * The TPO contended that difference if any in case of the assets employed on account of lesser requirement of storage space, inventory maintenance, marketing cost, labour cost etc. could have a bearing on the net profit earned by the Assessee but the same cannot affect the Assessee's gross earnings. (b) Import of CBU is closely linked with the manufacturing activity of MB India MB India has set up a manufacturing unit in India to manufacture Mercedes cars. Further, as a part of its manufacturing and sales activity it also needs to: import CBUs which are not locally manufactured which provides the customers access to the global range of cars and thereby build its customer base for potential sale of locally manufactured cars; and Service its customers in respect of the cars manufactured in India as well as the cars imported as CBUs, for which it imports spares for after sale services. As discussed abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid controlled transaction for benchmarking international transaction of import of CBUs. (i) With respect to issue of controlled transaction, the Appellant places reliance on the following: * Rule 10B(2) of the Rules provides that comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction shall be judged with reference to the following: (a) The specific characteristics...... (b) The functions performed...... (c) The contractual terms...... (d) Conditions prevailing in the markets...... * Rule 10B (3) of the Rules provides that an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if: (a) None of the differences, if any, between the transactions...... (b) Reasonably accurate adjustments...... * Rule 10B (4) of the Rules provides that the data to be used in analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction shall be the data relating to the financial year in which the international transaction has been entered into...... (j) Basis the above, the assessee submits that the learned TPO has erred in comparing the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ables in the Prowess database failed the required degree of comparability required for RPM." (o) Further, the RPM evaluates the arm's length nature of a controlled transaction by reference to the gross profit margin realised in a comparable uncontrolled transaction. But it is difficult to get data required for computing gross margins of comparable companies. (p) RPM requires Close comparability of Functions, Assets and Risks The transaction of Import and resale of CBU and spares are different on the following grounds: * Spares and cars (i.e. CBUs) cannot be even said as same or similar products. While the car is a fully finished product, which is ready to use by a consumer, spare parts are a small part of the car, carrying a fraction of the car's value and to be used by a service provider (automobile service stations); * The Assessee performs marketing functions only for sale of CBUs and not for sale of spares. * The market for spares and CBUs is very different; and * CBU imports are restricted to only those models that are not manufactured in India whereas all the spares dealt in by MB India are for manufactured as well as imported ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yed Higher Lower Space requirement and storage cost Higher Nil Manpower Higher Lower Transportation and other related costs Higher Lower These factors need to be taken into account before making any adjustment. 8. We find that Pune Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2005-06 (supra) has observed and held as follows: (a) Decision of Hon'ble ITAT with respect to the combined transactions / aggregation approach (page 52 and 53 of paper book): "32. Now, coming to the facts of present case, where the assessee was engaged in the activities of manufacture of passenger cars worldwide many models of Mercedes Benz were available. However, in the year under consideration the assessee was engaged only in manufacturing activity of C and E class brands of passenger cars. But in order to make available other brands available worldwide, to its customers in India and in the absence of manufacturing facility developed for such models, the assessee imports CBUs and resells the same to customers. The assessee has placed on record some models which were imported in the year under consideration are being manufactured by the assessee in later ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actions does not stand and the same is cancelled. Hence, the TPO had erred in applying RPM method. In any case, under the garb of RPM method, TPO has compared sale of spares with sale of passenger cars. Further, it may be pointed out that TPO compared margins of fully developed vehicles with margins of spare parts, but the two items cannot be said to be functionally comparable and hence, there is no merit in the stand of Assessing Officer / TPO in this regard." (c) The above decision has been followed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Appellant's subsequent year's for AY 2006-07 to AY 2011-12 as below: Assessment year ITA No Page reference of the paper book AY 2006-07 (ITA 1468/PUN/2010) 12 to 16 AY 2007-08 (ITA 10/PUN/2012) AY 2008-09 (ITA 298/PUN/2013) AY 2009-10 (ITA 514/PUN/2014) (ITA 566/PUN/2014) (CO 24/PUN/2015) 1537 and 1539 AY 2010-11 (ITA No.380/PUN/2015) (ITA No.486/PUN/2015) AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 546/PUN/2016) (ITA No. 534/PUN/2016) 9. We are in conformity with the view taken by the Tribunal in the aforestated lead case in regard to the assessee-company wherein it is held that the transactions of import of comple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of TPO. The final set of comparables as per Hon'ble DRP is tabulated below: Sr. No Name of the company Operating margin FY 2011-12 1 Force Motors Ltd 2.99% 2 Premier Ltd - Automotive Segment 3.14% 3 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd 9.19% 4 Tata Motors Ltd 4.83% Arithmetic Mean 5.24% 12. The assessee is now contesting the rejection of Hindustan Motors Ltd. (HML), and inclusion of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (M & M). Broadly, the assessee submits that HML i.e. Hindustan Motors Ltd. is functionally comparable to the assessee which has been duly accepted in A.Y. 2009-10 by the learned D.R.P. That 85% of the revenue earned by HML is from sale of vehicles. The assessee further contended that the reasons for incurring losses are routine business reasons and not extra ordinary in nature. The company is adding products to its portfolio and thus has an ongoing business. The rejection of HML by T.P.O is that it is consistent loss maker. However, it is submitted by the assessee that automobile industry itself is incurring loss. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nokia Siemens Network India P. Ltd. (ITA No. 692/2019) has held that incase ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the view that loss making companies should not be excluded only on that basis. In the present case, there was no dispute on the functional profile of the assessee being similar to that of ITI Ltd. In support of its conclusion, the ITAT referred to the decision of this court in Chryscapital Investment Advisros (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2015) 376 SITR 183 (Del). 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the opinion expressed by the ITAT is a plausible one in the facts and circumstances of the case. The inclusion of ITI Ltd. and the other two comparables is supported by sound reasoning given by the ITAT which in the considered view of this Court cannot be said to be perverse. No substantial question of law arises." 14. We are of the considered view as noted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nokia Siemens Network India P. Ltd. (supra) that a comparable cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it is recurring losses if the industry in which the comparable operating itself is incurring loss. Following this view, we direct the A.O/T.P.O to include HML as comparable in respect to the assessee company. 15. The assessee also w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... excluded three concerns Honda Siel, Hyundai Motors and Maruti Udyog on the ground of RPT filter of 15%, though they were functionally similar to the assessee. The assessee's objection to the same was that the margins of the said concerns could not be applied because they do not fulfil the RPT filter. In several cases, the Tribunal had held that while benchmarking the international transaction between the assessee and its Associated Enterprise and comparing the margins with margins of concerns, then one of the filters to be applied is RPT filter. ........ 13. Applying the said filter of RPT, the benchmarking has to be carried out. In the facts of the present case before us, the Assessing Officer did not apply any RPT filter but the CIT(A) had applied RPT filter of 15% and the three concerns were excluded in the hands of the assessee. In view thereof, we find no merit in the issue raised by the Revenue vide ground of appeal No.1. We hold that the RPT filter needs to be applied in the present set of facts and the three concerns having not fulfilled RPT filter cannot be included in the final list of comparables. In the case of assessee itself, the Assessing Officer /....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....56.09 18,804.52 3.49% 3 Premier Ltd-Automotive Segment 32.18 163.28 19.71% 4 Force Motors Ltd. 332.57 1,492.98 22.28% Average 12.57% MB India 1146.49 1581.55 72.49% (a) From the above, it can be observed that the Company has significantly higher percentage of imports 72.49% vis-a-vis the comparable companies (12.57%). Hence, the additional cost incurred by the Appellant as compared to the comparable companies on account of custom duty would have to be neutralized so as to facilitate the profit comparison with the comparable companies. However, the learned TPO did not take into consideration the excess custom duty paid by MB India on imports while computing the operating margin of MB India. (b) The assessee would like to mention that the assessee has considered non-cenvatable custom duty for the purpose of import duty adjustment. These details are not available in case of comparable companies. The assessee needs to derive the normalized operating profit which can be compared with the comparable companies. Accordingly, the assessee used the details available in the public domain, i.e., the percentage of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it case" (e) Quantification of Excess import duty cost incurred by MB India Computation of excess import duty cost considering the comparable companies selected by the TPO 4Sr No Ref Name of company Amount (Rs.) 1 1 Tata Motors Ltd 4.82% 2 2 Premier Ltd-Automotive Segment 19.71% 3 3 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd 3.49% 4 4 Force Motors Ltd 22.28% Average 12.57% Computation of import duty adjustment A Total value of raw material imported & indigenous for MB India for FY 2011-12 15,81,55,36,285 B Total value of raw material imported for MB India for FY 2011-12 11,46,49,34,675 C=B/A Import percentage of MB India 72.49% D Total non cenvatable duty paid by MB India 1,34,13,43,074 E Average import content of comparable companies 12.57% F=D/C*E Duty that would have been payable as per industry standards 23,26,58,696 G Excess of non cenvatable duty paid by MB India due to high imports 1,10,86,84,378 Calcu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, MB India was significantly impacted by the adverse fluctuation in the foreign exchange currency and its net profit margin has also been adversely affected. Further, a significant portion of the cost includes the cost of goods purchased by MB India in the form of import from its AE. (b) Further, the assessee submits that the average sale realisation price per unit has gone down to Rs 0.24 crores (approx.) from Rs 0.29 crores (approx.) for the year under consideration. As against the same, the cost of raw material has increased significantly which has resulted in higher consumption of raw material to sales ratio compared to earlier year. The primary reason for such significant increase in raw material cost is abnormal variation in the exchange rates. Accordingly, in order to eliminate the impact of such fluctuations, the assessee requested to grant adjustment pertaining to foreign exchange rate fluctuation. In this regard, the assessee submits as follows: (c) Impact of fluctuations in Exchange Rate on MB India's Margins: With respect to above, MB India has quantified such impact by collating data for the INR v/s EUR exchange rates for the period under consideration (i.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gin of MB India works out at 4.35% keeping all the factors constant. Further, the assessee places reliance on Demag Cranes & Components (India) Private Limited Vs DCIT, (ITA No 328/PN/2014) wherein the Pune Tribunal has upheld such an adjustment by observing as under: "16. In ground No. 8 the assessee has assailed the findings of TPO and DRP in not granting abnormal exchange rate appreciation adjustment. The ld. AR of the assessee has contended that there has been substantial fall in the value of INR vis-à-vis EURO. Since, the assessee is using significant volume of imported inputs viz. raw materials, spares, consumables. The assessee has given chart giving month wise exchange rate fluctuation of EURO vis-à-vis INR in financial year 2008-09 and financial year 2007-08. The same is reproduced here-in-below: Period Exchange Rate INR per EURO F.Y. 2008-09 F.Y. 2007-08 April 63.09 57.07 May 65.39 55.27 June 66.69 54.77 July 67.65 55.45 August 64.49 55.60 September 65.67 56.07 October 66.89 56.28 November 63.69 57.89 December 66.88 57.49 January 66.42 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06 was 100 Thai Bhat equivalent to INR 110 and after consideration of said average exchange rate, price of sale of goods had to be agreed upon with the customers. The DR has not disputed the point that during April 2006 to September 2006 at the time of purchase, the exchange rate of Thai Bhat was substantially increased and the average exchange rate of Thai Bhatt was increased to 100 Thai Bhat = INR 119. Accordingly, we cannot rule out and ignore this factual matrix emerged from the fluctuation of foreign exchange rates that while prices of purchases and import made by the appellant have increased, the sale price of exported goods remained on the lower side which is an important element to materially affect the price in the open market. In this situation, we are inclined to hold that the authorities below should have considered the said difference due to foreign exchange rate fluctuation in favour of Thai Bhat and against the INR and the said difference has to be removed and the margin thereon has to be adjusted for arriving at the credible comparable through the requisite adjustments." 17. The ld. DR has not been able to controvert the submissions made on behalf of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge rate which resulted in significant increase in cost of raw material, spares, CBUs, etc. The working for the abnormal foreign exchange movement in current year vis-àvis compared to previous year is reproduced below. Sr. No Reference Particulars Entity level Amount in lakhs 1 (A) Total cost of goods imported during the year 1,25,646.67 2 (B) Percentage increase in EUR in the current year over previous year 10.23% 3 (C) = A*B Increase in the Cost of goods imported because of exchange rate fluctuations 11,659.25 4 (D) Less: Foreign exchange loss already excluded from total expenditure in the TP report (1,460.00) 5 (E)= C+D Net increase in cost of goods imported because of exchange rate fluctuations 10,199.25 Impact on the margins of MB India's 6 (F) Operating Income as per Split profitability 2,36,521.01 7 (G) Operating Cost as per Split profitability 2,36,421.60 8 (H) = (E) Less: Net increase in cost of goods imported because of exchange rate fluctuation (10,199.25) 9 (I) = G+H Operating cost excluding increase in cost of goods imported d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le companies also operate in the same industry, and they may also be impacted in the same way as the assessee. Hence, this expense cannot be allowed as extra-ordinary expenses. (e) With respect to above, the assessee submits that the import content of the comparable companies as selected by the learned TPO (on an average 9.34%) is significantly lower than the import content of MB India (72.49%) and accordingly it would be incorrect to say that the comparable companies may also have been impacted in the same way as assessee. Litigation expenses (f) The assessee wishes to submit that, during the year under consideration, MB India did an out of court settlement with some of the dealers who have filed suit against MB India. The dealers agreed the compensation and amount was paid in order to end the litigation. Accordingly, the assessee excluded the said expenditure for computing the operating margin of MB India considering the said expenses as one time extra ordinary cost. (g) The details for the extra-ordinary litigation expenses are as below: Particulars Amount (Rs) Expenses incurred by MB India Payment of settlement amount to Millennium Motors 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1088 of 2015), dated 26-4-2018 wherein it was observed and held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as under: "3 Re. Question (a):- (i) It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue by the following decisions of this Court: (i) CIT v/s. M/s. Ratilal Becharlal & Sons (Income Tax AppealNo.1906 of 2013) rendered on 24th November, 2015; (ii) CIT v/s. Goldstar Jewellery Design (P) Ltd., (Income Tax Appeal No.2237 of 2013) rendered on 4th February, 2016 ; (iii) CIT v/s. Alstom Projects India Ltd., (Income Tax Appeal No.362 of 2014) rendered on 14th September, 2016; and (iv) CIT v/s. M/s. Bhansali & Co., (Income Tax Appeal No.1066 of 2014) rendered on 9th December, 2016. (ii) Besides the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the issue also stands covered by the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v/s. Keihin Panalfa Ltd., (Income Tax Appeal No.11 of 2015) rendered on 9th September, 2015. (iii) In all the aforesaid decisions, it has been held tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g +/-5% range, which is directed to be allowed.‖ 28. In view of the aforesaid judgment in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2005-06 ground No. 15 raised by the assessee stands allowed. 27. Ground No. 16 is with regard to the disallowance of royalty expenditure. The assessee submits that it is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Mercedes-Benz passenger cars in the Indian market. Pursuant to a 'Technology License Agreement' entered by the Appellant with Daimler AG, it had paid an amount of Rs 12,51,11,877 as royalty to Daimler AG during FY 2012-13. The key terms of the agreement, as amended from time to time provide the following: * Grant to MB India a non-exclusive license within India to assemble, manufacture and sell licensed vehicles and engines ('licensed products') including pertinent parts and components; * Non-exclusive right to MB India to export such licensed products; * Supply by Daimler AG to MB India of drawings and designs and full technical product documentation required for the manufacture of licensed products; * Continuous support by Daimler AG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the period of the agreement and the royalty expenditure in this regard is therefore revenue in nature. (e) In relation to AY 2012-13, as mentioned above, the Ld. AO relying on the orders passed by the erstwhile AO's during the assessment proceedings for AY 2004-05 to AY 2011-12 and further relying on the Hon'ble DRP's directions pertaining to AY 2007-08 to AY 2011-12 disallowed the royalty expenses by considering it to be a capital expenditure in its Draft Assessment order. The said ground was further raised before the Hon'ble DRP, however the DRP by considering it to be an issue similar previous year upheld the disallowance made by the Ld. AO. (f) Further, the assessee submitted that the facts of the ground have already been considered in A.Y. 2002-03 to A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15. In respect of the said issue in A.Y. 2002-03 the co-ordinate Bench Pune held that the royalty paid MB India is revenue expenditure. The relevant observation of Pune Bench Tribunal is as follows: " We find no infirmity in the above decision of the Ld.CIT(A). From the various terms and conditions of the agreement, we find the Assessee has neither acquired any asset on an outright bas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn case on the same parity of reasoning, facts and circumstances, we hold that the royalty expenditure in this regard is revenue in nature. Accordingly the Ground No. 16 stands allowed. 28. Ground No. 17 is with regard to disallowance of Homologation expenditure. The learned A.O disallowed the expenditure incurred on homologation amounting to Rs. 2,34,85,773/- by considering it to be a capital expenditure. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain the nature of expenses in response to which the assessee submitted the details of the expenditure and also provided reasons as to why the said expenditure should be considered as a revenue expense. The assessee further submits that on this issue for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 in assessee's own case the Pune Tribunal has held this expenses to be a revenue expenditure. In ITA No. 546/PUBN/2016 and others dated 31-7-2019 on this issue Pune Tribunal held as follows; 23. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In the line of business of assessee i.e. manufacture and sale of passenger cars, the automobiles which were manufactured were governed by Central Motor Vehicles Act (CMV Ac....