TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 828
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this common order. 2. The common issues contended by the assessee through various grounds are tabulated below - Issues contended AY 2008-09 AY 2009-10 AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 Expenditure on software to be allowed as revenue expense. Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Ground No.1 Disallowance under secl.14A read with Rule 8D Ground No.2 - Ground No.9 Ground No.8 Addition on account of unutilized MODVAT credit Ground No.3 - Depreciation on UPS Ground No.2 Ground No.2 Transfer Pricing Adjustment - (a) Notional interest for counter guarantee given to associate concern (b) Notional interest for delayed payment from AEs Ground No.4 Ground No.2 Ground No.3 Ground No.3 Disallowance of the provision for warranty Ground No.5 Ground No.3 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Allowability of amalgamation expenses under sec.35DD Ground No.6 Ground No.4 Ground No.5 Ground No.5 Disallowance of commission payable to the Managing Director under sec.40(a)(ia). Ground No.7 Ground No.5 Ground No.6 Ground No.6 Disallowance for delayed payment of ESIC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officer passed the order dated January 30, 2012 under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act, wherein besides the TP adjustment the assessing officer made certain disallowances / additions which resulted in the assessed being computed at Rs. 164,60,64,178. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). DISALLOWANCE OF SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE - Ground No.1 5. The brief facts of the issue are that during the relevant previous year the assessee had incurred expenditure towards various application software's aggregating to Rs. 35,37,723/-, the break-up of which is tabulated hereunder Sr.No. Nature of payment Amount (Rs.) 1 Software development charges for -MIS Reports 65,000/- 2 Software development charges for E-MIS Reports 59,262/- 3 License fee of software modification of SAP Input and output screens 3,87,463/- 4 Application software for window operating systems 1,26,720/- 5 Licence fee of software for modification of SAP ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....record. We notice with regard to treatment of application software the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341(Delhi) and CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 329 (Del) has held that - "3.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In Amway India Enterprises (supra), it has been held that the purchase of software is a revenue expenditure. I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 10 | P a g e In Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (supra) it is held that the extent of expenditure cannot be a decisive factor in determining its nature and treatment in books of account not conclusive. The Hon'ble High Court held that the software expenses were not to create new asset or a new source of income but to upgrade the system and thus the software expenditure is revenue expenditure. Facts being identical, we follow the ratio laid down in the above decisions and hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards the purchase of application software is revenue in nature. Thus the 2nd ground of appeal is allowed." 9. We further notice that the above decision has been f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incurred towards payment of software license fees is revenue in nature and should allowed as a deduction. This ground of the assessee is allowed. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECL.14A READ WITH RULE 8D - Ground No.2 11. During the year, the assessee has earned interest income amounting to Rs. 88.19 lacs on Tax Free Bonds and Dividend of Rs. 829 lacs exempt under the Act. The assessee has calculated a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 7,73,439/- u/s.14A of the Act. The assessing officer re-computed the disallowance by invoking rule 8D, wherein he has disallowed a sum of Rs. 29,69,000 towards interest under rule 8D(2)(ii) and a sum of Rs. 69,14,000 under rule 8D(2)(iii). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowances. 12. The ld AR submitted that the assessee's own funds to the tune of Rs. 593.69 cr. far exceeded the total investments made Rs.232.14 cr. and the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not warranted in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank 438 ITR 1 and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) and others. The ld AR further submitted that this contention has been accepted by the Hon'ble ITAT in the Assessee's case for Assessment Year 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment is shown in Column "C" of the P&L Account where the CENVAT credit of Rs. 14331/- lacs is credited to the P&L Account. The assessee further submitted that this will have a balancing effect whereby he CENVAT credit available from opening stock and purchases is either consumed in the production process or lying in closing stock. The assessee also submitted that there cannot be a situation where the adjustments prescribed under section 145A will result in to increased in profit and therefore, no adjustments to the total income of the company is required on account of provisions of section 145A of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee stating that 'non-inclusion' of CENVAT i.e. following exclusive method is totally absurd and gives a distorted and suppressed picture of actual profits of the business. The Assessing Officer thus proceeded to add the difference of the opening and closing balances of CENVAT and Sales Tax Set off, the difference being Rs. 3,28,76,516/-, to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titution of Section 145A of the 1961 Act by Finance(No. 2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01.04.2010, wherein new clause (b) is inserted in the provisions of Section 145A and new clause (a) in amended Section 145A concerns with valuation of inventory which is exactly similarly worded to Section 145A as was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, w.e.f. 01.04.1999 . The notes on clause explain the substitution of Section 145A of the 1961 by Finance Act( No.2 ), 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 as under: "Clause 56 of the Bill seeks to substitute section 145A of the Income-tax Act, which relates to method of accounting in certain cases. The existing provisions contained in said section 145A provides that while computing the value of the inventory as on the 1st and the last day of the previous year, the computation according to the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee shall be adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fees paid or liability incurred for the same under any law in force. It is proposed to amend the said section so as to provide that the interest received by an assessee on compensation or on enhanced compensation, as the case may be, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that cenvat credit could not have been added to value of closing stock, by holding as under: "5. We have considered the submissions. It is not disputed that the assessee was liable to excise duty. The assessee got credit in the excise duty already paid on the raw materials purchased by it and utilized in the manufacturing of excisable goods. The assessee was adopting the exclusive method i.e. valuing the raw- materials on the purchase price minus (-) the Modvat credit. The same would be permissible. The Apex Court in the case of Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (supra) while affirming the order of High Court, has observed that the income was not generated to the extent of Modvat credit or unconsumed raw-material. Merely because the Modvat credit was irreversible credit offered to manufacturers upon purchase of duty paid raw-materials, that would not amount to income which was liable to be taxed under the Act. It is also held that whichever method of accounting is adopted, the net result would be the same. 6. Considering the above, the amount of the un-utilized Cenvat credit could not have been directly added to the closing stock." The assessment year under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-4- 1999, i.e., assessment year 1999-2000. In this appeal, we are concerned with the assessment year 1989-90. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to go into the provisions of section 145A. We are also not examining, therefore, the Subsequent Guidance Note issued by the ICAI which is based on section 145A. The Legislature clearly intended, therefore, that the computation made by the assessees prior to the assessment year 1999- 2000 should not be disturbed and, therefore, the Legislature has brought the said section 145A into force only from 1-4-1999." Hon'ble Bombay High Court while adjudicating appeal in the case of Diamond Dye Chem Limited(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Catrini India Limited(supra) as well amended provisions of Section 145A of the 1961 Act. It relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of Indo Nippon Chemical(supra) which is prior to insertion of Section 145A of the 1961 Act. Under these circumstances as discussed by us elaborately above, we are inclined to restore this matter back to the file of the AO for denovo determination of the issue in the light of our above discussions as w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the material on record. We notice that the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 has considered the issue of ALP adjustment towards counter guarantee and held that - "27. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that the assessee along with its AE namely Kansai Paints Company Ltd., Japan jointly promoted a company in Malaysia namely Kansai Coatings Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia which is also AE of the assessee wherein the assessee held 55% of share while the Japanese company held 45% share in the Malaysian JV Company. The said Malaysian company acquired business assets and liabilities of Sime Darby Malaysia Bhd. for which Malaysian company obtained loan mainly for working capital of RM 24 Million from RBH Bank Berhad , a Malaysian Bank. As a condition for grant of loan, the Japanese AE of the assessee who was co-promoter of the Malaysian Company stood guarantor to the Bank. The Japanese Company required assessee to give counter guarantee to it in the ratio of 55% which was in the ratio of shareholding of the assessee in Malaysian Company. The assessee gave counter guarantee to its Japanese AE to the tune of RM 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to any one or more of such enterprises. (2) A transaction entered into by an enterprise with a person other than an associated enterprise shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be [deemed to be an international transaction] entered into between two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement in relation to the relevant transaction between such other person and the associated enterprise, or the terms of the relevant transaction are determined in substance between such other person and the associated enterprise [where the enterprise or the associated enterprise or both of them are non-residents irrespective of whether such other person is a non-resident or not]. [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that- (i) the expression "i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... customer lists, customer contracts, customer relationship, open purchase orders; (g) contract related intangible assets, such as, favourable supplier, contracts, licence agreements, franchise agreements, non-compete agreements; (h) human capital related intangible assets, such as, trained and organised work force, employment agreements, union contracts; (i) location related intangible assets, such as, leasehold interest, mineral exploitation rights, easements, air rights, water rights; (j) goodwill related intangible assets, such as, institutional goodwill, professional practice goodwill, personal goodwill of professional, celebrity goodwill, general business going concern value; (k) methods, programmes, systems, procedures, campaigns, surveys, studies, forecasts, estimates, customer lists, or technical data; (l) any other similar item that derives its value from its intellectual content rather than its physical attributes.]" Notes on clauses to Finance Bill, 2012 also clarified that explanation is clarificatory in nature and shall be applicable from 01.04.2002, which is reproduced hereunder: "Clause 34 of the Bill ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (b) Mr. Tejveer Singh, the learned counsel for the Revenue, very fairly points out that being aggrieved by the above order dated 13.11.2013 of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09, Revenue had filed an appeal to this Court being Income Tax Appeal No. 1302 of 2014. The appeal of the Revenue on this issue was dismissed by the order dated 2.2.2017 by this Court as it did not give rise to any substantial question of law. (c) No distinguishing feature in fact or in law in this appeal from that in Income Tax Appeal No. 1302 of 2014 is shown to us. (d) Therefore, for the reasons recorded in our order dated 2.2.2017, this question also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained." The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has consistently held that comparison cannot be done while computing ALP of international transaction by way of corporate guarantee with bank guarantee. The similar stand was taken in CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 57(Bom.) , wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under: "10. Having considered submissions of Mr. Malhotra for the revenue and Mr. Pardiwalla for the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "1. The following two questions arise for determination in this appeal filed by the Revenue. (i) With respect to addition of Rs. 11,51,24,333/- to the income of the assessee (respondent herein) made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of guarantee commission chargeable to its Associate Enterprises, whether the benchmark fixed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the international transaction by considering arm's length rate of the bank guarantee at 3% under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was correct? (ii) Whether interest was not payable by the assessee/respondent under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on failure to deposit the advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Insofar as question No.(i) is concerned we have perused the order of the learned Tribunal and the order of the High Court affirming the view taken by the learned Tribunal. 3. On such consideration we find that question No.1 has been rightly decided by the High Court in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The same would, therefore, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....a. . On the other hand the TPO has also referred to guarantee commission charged by banks which is to the tune of 3%p.a. on bank guarantee issued by bankers. While it is also benchmarked that in a case of the Dutch State, FMO had charged guarantee commission of 2.5% in the case of Rabo India Finance Pvt. Limited wherein both were related parties. Thus, what emerges is that providing of corporate guarantee by a taxpayer to its AE within meaning of Section 92A is an international transaction u/s 92B which need to be benchmarked using CUP method to compute ALP of the said transaction of furnishing of corporate guarantee. The ALP to be computed will vary depending upon e several internal as well external factors. In our considered view, end of justice will be met if the ALP be determined @ 0.5% p.a. of corporate guarantee issued by assessee in favour of Kansai Paint Company Limited, Japan. The Mumbai-tribunal has computed ALP@ 0.5% in the case of Piramal Glass Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 80 taxmann.com 68(Mumbai) , in the case of Videocon Industries Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 79 taxmann.com 216(Mum-trib.) , in the case of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. ACIT re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is it was submitted that there should not be any interest charged for relayed payments on AE transactions. Without prejudice the ld AR submitted that the rate applied by the revenue is the domestic rate which is not correct and that the LIBOR rate should be applied. Reliance in this regard is placed on The Bombay High Court in the case of Tecnimont (2018) 96 taxmann.com 223. The ld AR further prayed that the TPO has considered a credit period of 30 days and prayed that a credit period of 90 days be considered. 27. The ld DR relied on the order of the CIT(A) and the assessing officer. 28. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. It is settled positions that delay in receipt of receivables from AE is an international transaction. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tecnimont (P.) Ltd (supra) has held that the delay in receivables is in substance amounts to granting of loan to an AE so as to enjoy the funds, which the AE would otherwise have to repay and that interest needs to be charged based LIBOR rates as the rate prevailing in country where the loan is received/consumed by the AE. We therefore direct the assessing officer to charge interest at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aper book), in the following manner: Sr No. (Rs in Millions) 1 Total Turnover of Asian Paints Limited 42,598.59 39,099.65 2 Turnover of Exterior Paints (Estimated at 20%) 8,519.72 7,019.93 3 Provision for warranty 3.43 1.91 % of provision to turnover of Exterior paints 0.040 0.027 0.035 Rounded to 0.035 The Ld.AR submitted that the liability to carry out repairs / replacement or make good for short supplies accrues on the date when the sales is effected and hence it is an in-built liability accrued in respect of warranty services and such liability is a definite ascertainable one and cannot be in the nature of a contingent liability. The ld AR further submitted that the conditions as mentioned by the assessing officer have been satisfied and that the assessee has also partly discharged its obligation in the accounting year 2008-09. Accordingly, the ld AR submitted that the provision for warranty is not a contingent liability and should therefore, be allowed. 32. The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently argued that the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction. In case the amount is allowed in the year in which actually incurred then allowing the provision in the current year would amount to double deduction. We therefore remit the issue back to the assessing officer with a direction to examine the basis of provision, the actual expenditure incurred and allow the claim in accordance law with after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ALLOWABILITY OF AMALGAMATION EXPENSES - Ground No.6 34. The Assessee had incurred Rs. 19,26,722 during the assessment year 2006-07 as amalgamation expenses of which 1/5th had been claimed under sec. 35DD. In the following year the Assessee incurred further expenses of Rs. 93,10,466/- and claimed the same under sec.35DD in 4 installments along with the balance of previous unclaimed amalgamation expenses. The AO rejected the claim holding that there was no provision to change the quantum of deduction from 1/5th to 1/4th nor to extend the period of allowability beyond 5 years. Accordingly the assessing officer allowed only 1/5th of RS.93,10,466 and disallowed the excess claim of Rs. 4,65,524/- . The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance. 35. The Ld.AR submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wholly and exclusively for the purpose of amalgamation is to be allowed as a deduction in 5 equal installments beginning from the year in which the amalgamation takes place. In assessee's case it is an undisputed fact that the amalgamation took place in the previous year 2006-07 and therefore 1/5th of the expenses incurred towards amalgamation has to be claimed from the said year for 5 years. The claim of the assessee is that the expenses incurred in the subsequent year i.e. 2007-08 need to be allowed in 4 installments since the assessee cannot claim the expenditure beyond 5 years from the year of amalgamation. However we are unable to appreciate this contention of the assessee for the reason that there is no provision under section 35DD to claim 1/4th of the expenditure incurred towards amalgamation and that the assessee could claim only 1/5th of the expenditure from AY 2007-08 for 5 years. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the assessee is rejected. DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYABLE TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR UNDER SEC.40(a)(ia) - Ground No.7 39. During the previous year, the assessee made provision of Rs. 75 lacs for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of salary in the light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v Indofil Industries Ltd. (2022) 135 taxmann.com 289. 41. The ld DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 42. We heard the parties and perused the materials. The case of the revenue is that the assessee has not deducted tax at source against the provision made towards commission payable to MD and that the commission payable is liable for tax deduction under section 194H of the Act. As per the submissions of the assessee, the allowability of commission in the subsequent year has not been questioned by the department and that since the provision of Rs.75 lakhs has been reversed on 01.04.2008, credited to the P & L A/c disallowance in the year under consideration would amount to double taxation. We notice that the assessing officer has not considered the submission of the assessee that the provision towards commission is reversed in the subsequent and paid as part of the salary on which tax was duly deducted. In our considered view, the submissions of the assessee with regard to provision made, subsequent reversal and tax deduction on actual payment etc., needs to be factually verified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Atom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2(24)(x) or in fact the other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43 B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1) (iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning. On the application of the original principles of law it could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(l)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43 B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously, the memorandum introducing the Finance Bill clearly stated that the provisions - especially second proviso to Section 43....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(l)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts - the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since it is the deduction from the employees' income and held in trust by the employer. This marked distinction has to be borne while interpreting the obligation of every assessee under Section 43 B. 54. In the opinion of this Court, the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer's obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntitled for any deduction. So finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. TREATY RATE TO BE APPLIED FOR DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTED INSTEAD OF RATE PRESCRIBED IN SEC.115-O - Additional Ground 47. The additional grounds raised are pure legal issue, which does not require investigation of new facts. Hence, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit the additional grounds. 48. The ld AR fairly conceded that the issue is covered by the decision of the Special Bench decision in the case of Total Oil (P) Ltd., 104 ITR (T) 1 against the assessee. Respectfully following the decision of special bench we dismiss the additional ground raised by the assessee. 49. In result the appeal for AY 2008-09 is partly allowed. I.T.A. No.3385/Mum/2014 - AY 2009-10 50. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the assessment year 2009- 10 are tabulated in the earlier part of this order, from which it is clear that all the issues arising in AY 2009-10 are similar to AY 2008-09. Considering the fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taxmann.com 201 (c) CIT Vs Orient Ceramics &Inds Ltd (200 Taxman 64) (Del) (d) CIT v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1267, dated 31-8-2010 (Del HC)] (e) Nokia India (P.) Ltd Vs CIT (52 SOT 103) (TDel) (f) American Express Services India Ltd Vs DCIT (151 TTJ 743) (TDel), (g) CIT v. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. (200 Taxman 64) (Del) 54. The ld AR made a without prejudice submission assuming without admitting that UPS is not a part of computers / computer system but it is merely an electrical device which regulates electricity and acts as an alternate source of electricity in power cuts, then it should be eligible for depreciation at the rate of 100% as held by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Venture Infotech Global (P) Ltd (25 SOT 184) i.e. as per the entry appearing in Appendix I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, item no. III (8)(ix)(E)(c). 55. We heard the ld DR. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noticed, in the case of PCIT vs Goa Tourism Development Ltd. the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court has held that UPS being a part/accessory of computer is eligible for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kansai Paint Philippines Inc. 15,96,658 36.46 23,48,458 7,51,800 59. The TPO did not accept the benchmarking done by the assessee and held that TNMM cannot be accepted as most appropriate method. The TPO proceeded to apply CUP method and arrived at an additional TP adjustment of Rs. 17,57,731/- 60. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the same in the domestic market and export sales stand in different footings and the circumstances, functions performed, risk assumed, terms and conditions of sales are different for export and domestic sale are different even if the same product is sold in both the markets. The assessee further submitted that in the absence of any export of the same product to non-AE, it is not appropriate to use CUP method. The assessee also submitted that the average contribution margin earned by the assessee in the domestic market on sale of the products to non-AE is a good profit level indicator (PLI) for calculating the ALP for export of the same products to AE and that TNMM is the most appropriate method to be applied in this case 61. The CIT(A) deleted the further TP ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arable price. Accordingly, the action of TPO in applying CUP method is not justifiable. As pointed out correctly by the appellant before me instead of making adjustments to the price charged to the non-AE in the domestic market on account of various differences, which will involved lots of subjectivity, to arrive at the Arms Length Price, it is most appropriate to compare average contribution margin earned by the appellant in the domestic market on sale of product to non-AEs is a good profit level indicator to take care of all differences, therefore TNMM is the most appropriate method to be worked out the ALP. As per the discussions above, the adjustment of Rs. 17,57,731/- made by the appellant by adopting TNMM method for calculating the ALP of the transaction in the return of income is appropriate and justified and therefore adjustment made by the TPO by adopting CUP method is deleted. In view of this, this ground of appeal is allowed." 62. The ld DR submitted that the TPO has correctly applied CUP method and accordingly supported the order of the TPO. The ld AR on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and prayed that the de....