ACIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI vs. J.B. CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, MUMBAI

The assessee challenged the aforesaid disallowance before the first appellate authority. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, endorsing the view of the Assessing Officer confirmed the addition.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted, the prohibition imposed by the Indian Medical Council as referred to in the CBDT Circular no.5 of 2012, is only in respect of Doctors / Medical Practitioners and not applicable to pharmaceutical companies. Further, he submitted, the CBDT circular referred to by the Assessing Officer is applicable prospectively, hence, cannot be applied to the impugned assessment year. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:–

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the assessee has incurred expenditure of ` 2,26,34,864, towards gifts, travel facilities and hospitality provided to doctors, customers and medical practitioners in medical conferences

In ground no.2, the assessee has challenged disallowance of ` 7,36,702, under section 14A of the Act.

Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that though the assessee has earned exempt income of ` 21,50,732, by way of dividend, however, it has not made any disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D towards expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain why such disallowance should not be made under section 14A of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to compute the disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D for an amount of ` 7,36,702, comprising of interest disallowance of ` 5,85,473=37 under rule 8D(2)(ii) and administrative expenses of ` 1,51,228=62. The 7 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted, major investment made by the assessee is in foreign subsidiaries and dividend on such investment is taxable. Further, he submitted, no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made as the assessee had sufficient interest free funds available with it to take care of the investment. In this context, he drew our attention to the Balance Sheet as at 31st March 2009, a copy of which is placed at Page–46 of the paper book. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:–

As regards disallowance of administrative expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii), the learned Authorised Representative submitted, these are old investments, hence, the assessee does not have to incur any administrative expenditure with regard to such investment.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. No doubt, the provisions of rule 8D are applicable to the impugned assessment year. However, on a perusal of the Balance Sheet of the company as at 31st March 2009, it is noticed that as against interest free funds of ` 52205.45 lakh available with the assessee, the investments made by the assessee stood at ` 4559.44 lakh. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the assessee had sufficient interest free funds available with it to take care of the investments. That being the case, disallowance of interest expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) cannot be made. However, to keep track of its investments and manage the funds, the assessee must be incurring certain administrative expenditure. Therefore, reasonable disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D(2)(iii) has to be made. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance of administrative expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) after excluding from the average value of investment, the investments which have not yielded any exempt income during the financial year relevant to assessment year under dispute. This ground is partly allowed.

In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged the addition of ` 17,18,941, on account of determination of arm's length price of corporate guarantee given to the AE.

Brief facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer noticed that the assessee has provided corporate guarantee to its overseas AE without charging any fees. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain why arm's length price of corporate guarantee fee should not be determined. Though, the assessee objecting to the proposed determination of arm's length price of corporate guarantee fee submitted that the provision of corporate guarantee is not in the nature of international transaction, however, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejecting the objection of the assessee determined the arm's length price of the corporate guarantee fee @ 1.5% per annum. Applying the said rate, he ultimately determined the arm's length price of corporate guarantee fee at ` 17,18,941. On the basis of the aforesaid adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the Assessing Officer added back the amount to the income of the assessee.

Though, the assessee challenged the aforesaid decision before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he refused to interfere with the decision of the Transfer Pricing Officer.

The learned Authorised Representative reiterating the stand taken before the Departmental Authorities submitted, the provision of corporate guarantee does not come within the definition of international transaction under section 92B of the Act. In support, he

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Insofar as the issue whether the provision of corporate guarantee comes within the purview of international transaction as defined under section 92B of the Act is concerned, there is a cleavage in the view expressed by different Benches of the Tribunal on the issue. While some Benches have held that provision of corporate guarantee does not come within the meaning of international transaction, however, there are many decisions which have held that it comes within the definition of international transaction as provided under Article 92B of the Act. In fact, in many of the cases, the assessees have accepted provision of corporate guarantee as international transaction under section 92B of the Act. In one of such cases viz. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd., [2015] 58 taxmann.com 254 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in computing the arm's length price of corporate guarantee fee @ 0.5%. Following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we direct the Assessing Officer to determine

Ground no.4, the assessee has sought relief with regard to deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act on the turnover of scrap sales.

Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IB as well as 10B of the Act in respect of scrap sales of ` 3,92,091 and ` 51.51.738 respectively called upon the assessee to explain why the deduction claimed should not be disallowed. After considering the submissions of the assessee the Assessing Officer, however, held that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction under section 80IB / 10B of the Act on the turnover of scrap sale and reduced the same for the purpose of computing deduction under the aforesaid provisions.

The assessee challenged the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer before the first appellate authority. After considering the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) though ultimately directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80IB / 10B on the turnover of scrap sales, however, he quantified such turnover at ` 3,92,091.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted, the amount of ` 3,92,091, is only in respect of scrap sales of 80IB unit. Therefore, learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have quantified the turnover of 10B unit. The learned Authorised Representative further submitted, the issue has been decided by the Tribunal in its favour in assessment years 2002–03 to 2006–07. In this context, he drew our attention to the orders of the Tribunal placed at paper book.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer.

We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Notably, while deciding similar issue in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years, the Tribunal has held that since the sale of scrap is integrally connected to the business activity of the assessee, it should form part of the turnover for computing deduction under section 80IB/10B of the Act. In fact, learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the aforesaid legal position has directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80IB / 10B of the Act. However, he has wrongly quantified the amount at ` 3,92,091, which is the scrap sales relating to 80IB unit, while leaving out the scrap sales of 10B unit amounting to ` 51,51,738. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim of 13 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed. ./2014 Revenue’s Appeal

The only issue arising in the aforesaid appeal is with regard to allowance of assessee’s claim of deduction under section 10B/80IB of the Act in respect of sale of scrap.

While deciding ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal, supra, we have held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under section 80IB/80B in respect of scrap sale. That being the case, ground raised by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

To sum up, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.04.2019