Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आदेश / ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :
These two appeals have been filed by the assessee. In ITA No. 119/PUN/2013 the assessee has assailed assessment order dated 27-11- 2012 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2008-09. ITA No. 1373/PUN/2014 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IT/TP, Pune dated 10-04-2014 for the assessment year 2007-08.
The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are : The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eaton Corporation USA (in short Eaton, USA). The assessee company is engaged in trading of Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) and Direct Current (DC) Power Systems, Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS) and Power Distribution Systems. During the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee entered into various international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The assessee applied Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method to benchmark its transactions with its AEs. For the assessment year 2008-09, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made adjustment of Rs.32,80,155/- in respect of payments made to AEs for Headquarter Services after determining arm‟s length price (ALP) of services rendered as Nil.
Similarly in the assessment year 2007-08, the TPO made adjustment of Rs.32,28,914/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment in respect of payments made by the assessee to its AEs for Headquarters services. Since, the facts of the case and nature of addition in both the assessment
3 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
years are identical, both these appeals are taken up together for adjudication. For the sake of convenience we will first take up the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2008-09 being the lead year for making transfer pricing adjustment by the Assessing Officer/TPO.
ITA No. 119/PUN/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09)
The assessee in appeal has assailed the findings of Assessing Officer by raising following grounds : “1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO erred in assessing the income of the Appellant under the normal provisions of the Act at Rs.47,55,09,740 against the returned income of Rs.44,29,84,467 based on the directions received from Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") upholding, interalia, the adjustment to the transfer price proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld TPO"). 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned AO / TPO erred in proposing and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding an adjustment of Rs.32,80,155 in respect of international transaction pertaining to payments made to associated enterprises ('AEs') for Headquarter ('HQ') services after determining the arm's length price ("ALP") of the same as 'Nil' without furnishing the details of comparable uncontrolled transactions on the basis of which the arm's length price of 'Nil' was determined. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/DRP/TPO has erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation and methodology adopted by the Appellant, being Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM"), for bench marking the international transactions pertaining to payments made to AEs for HQ services, without any cogent reason and further erred failing to determine the ALP as per the transfer pricing provisions of the Act. 4. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO/DRP/TPO erred in determining the ALP of HQ services as 'Nil' on the premise that the Appellant did not receive such services, without appreciating the materials and explanations furnished by the appellant in this regard. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP/TPO ought to have appreciated that out of Rs.32,80,155, Rs.10,44,713, represented reimbursements on account of ad net and internet charges, paid to third party by AE on behalf of the Appellant. Being in the nature of pure reimbursements and hence devoid of any profit element, it ought not to have been considered while proposing transfer pricing adjustment.
4 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
Shri Vishal Kalra appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a part of the Eaton Corporation worldwide. Over the years, the Group has developed global functions and achieved operational efficiencies which go into the core of its business. The efficiencies are shared by the group by way of the Headquarter services. The shared services and internal audit services are rendered through centralized entities i.e. Eaton Power Quality Pte Limited, Singapore (in short „Eaton Singapore‟) and Eaton China (Investment) Company Limited (in short („Eaton China‟). The assessee has entered into agreements with aforesaid entities for availing shared services and international audit services. As per the agreement, the AEs for the assessment years under appeal computed total service fee at cost plus 5% mark up and allocated the same based on the net sales/turnover of all Eaton group entities in the Asia pacific region. On the basis of allocation of cost the assessee made payment of INR 2,143,508 to Eaton China and INR 91,894 to Eaton Singapore in respect of the services provided during the period relevant to the assessment year 2008-09.
Similarly, for the assessment year 2007-08 the payment made by assessee to its AEs for the services provided and allocation of cost is INR 20,64,399 to Eaton China and INR 11,64,515 to Eaton Singapore.
4.1 In transfer pricing study, the assessee aggregated following international transactions : (i) Purchase of trade goods, (ii) Sale of trade goods, (iii) Headquarter/shared/internal audit services received, (iv) Services rendered, (v) Reimbursements paid and (vi) Reimbursements. The assessee applied TNMM to benchmark the transactions at entity level as the most appropriate method. The assessee selected operating profit/sales (OP/Sales) as the profit level indicator (PLI). During the Financial Year
5 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
2007-08 the assessee earned margin (OP/Sales) of 15.78% vis-à-vis margin of 2.15% of the comparable companies. The international transactions of the assessee were declared to be at arm‟s length.
4.2 The TPO vide order dated 25-10-2011 made addition of INR 32,80,115 by determining the arm‟s length price of the international transaction qua the services received from its AEs as Nil. The TPO held that no evidences have been filed by the assessee to establish receipt of services and benefits therefrom. The ld. AR pointed that out of the total addition of INR 32,80,115, INR 10,44,713 represents reimbursements of communication costs in terms of WHQ Agreement between the assessee and Eaton US. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order dated 28-10-2011, incorporated the TP adjustment and proposed to assess the total income of the assessee at INR 47,55,09,740. The assessee filed objections before the DRP. The DRP vide direction dated 05-09-2012 observed that the assessee has failed to establish with cogent evidence, the receipt of services and the benefits and thus upheld the transfer pricing adjustment. Pursuant to the directions of DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned assessment order dated 27-11-2012 making the addition of Rs.32,80,155/- in the income returned by the assessee.
4.3 The ld. AR submitted that during the proceedings before the authorities below the assessee furnished the copies of agreements with its AEs, sample e-mail correspondences to show the services rendered by AEs. The ld. AR pointed that during the period relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 the assessee received following services from its AEs :
6 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
AE Services received by the Appellant Pricing Amount (INR) Policy Eaton Accounting/Finance Cost + 5% 2,143,508 China HR Treasury Tax Asia Pacific Regional Administration and Management Eaton Internal Audit Cost + 5% China Perform Sarbanes Oxley validation on behalf of the management of the local entities within Asia Pacific region; Perform internal audits for in- scope locations based on analysis of location, annual turnover, risk factor and past audit issues; Special audit/review; Closing balance sheet review or opening balance sheet review; and Provide accounting assistance Eaton Regional strategic management Cost + 5% 91,894 Singapore and advice Regional marketing services Regional finance service support Regional Six sigma and human resources planning & support Eaton US Use of device such as Mobile, 1,044,713 blackberry devise, Tele- conferencing, video conferencing facility, Access to email, e Room, Instant e-Messaging Charges, etc. Data transmission services Conference calls and video conferencing charges
4.4 Despite various documents furnished by the assessee to substantiate the services received by the assessee from its AEs, the TPO and the DRP rejected benchmarking analysis done in the transfer pricing study. The TPO and the DRP further erred in applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price
7 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
(CUP) method for benchmarking the international transactions without identifying the comparable uncontrolled transactions.
The ld. AR to further supplement his contentions filed written submissions. The relevant extract of written submissions of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 are reproduced here-in-below : “2. Grounds of appeal No. 1 : General 3. Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 to 4 : Determination of ALP of services received as ‘Nil’ : 3.1 During the transfer pricing proceedings and before the DRP, the Appellant inter-alia submitted the following information in respect of services received : 3.2 Agreements with the AEs : Shared Services Agreement with Eaton (China) dated January 1, 2005 (Refer pages 37 to 50 of the paper book); Shared Internal Audit Service Agreement with Eaton China dated January 1, 2005 (Refer pages 51 to 62 of the paper book); Master Agreement with Eaton Singapore dated April 1, 2004 (Refer pages 29 to 36 of the paper book); and WHQ Services Agreement with Eaton USA dated June 24, 2005 (Refer pages 93 to 106 of the paper book). Sample e-mail correspondence:
3.3. The Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings submitted sample e-mail correspondences as evidence that the AEs have actually provided support services to EPQPL (Refer pages 109 to 133 of the paper book). It would also be appreciated, if the Appellant would have maintained in house facility/personnel for the aforementioned services, then the cost would have been much higher than what has been paid to the AEs, i.e. INR 22,35,402. In fact, it is for this reason that the Appellant's total personnel cost is of INR 7,35,88,748, which is 3.41% of the total turnover. 3.4 A brief description of the services received by the Appellant from its AEs are as under : AE Services received by the Appellant Pricing Amount Policy (INR) Eaton Accounting/Finance Cost + 5% 2,143,508 China HR Treasury Tax Asia Pacific Regional Administration and Management (Refer Page 47 – 48 of paper book)
8 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
Eaton Internal Audit Cost + 5% China Perform Sarbanes Oxley validation on behalf of the management of the local entities within Asia Pacific region; Perform internal audits for in-scope locations based on analysis of location, annual turnover, risk factor and past audit issues; Special audit/review; Closing balance sheet review or opening balance sheet review; and Provide accounting assistance (Refer Page 62 of paper book) Eaton Regional strategic management and Cost + 5% 91,894 Singapore advice Regional marketing services Regional finance service support Regional Six sigma and human resources planning & support (Refer Page 30 of paper book) Eaton US 1,044,713 Use of device such as Mobile, blackberry devise, Tele-conferencing, video conferencing facility, Access to email, e Room, Instant e-Messaging Charges, etc. Data transmission services Conference calls and video conferencing charges (Refer Page 104 – 105 of paper book)
3.5 A gist of the contents of the aforesaid e-mails is provided in the following table provide a clear picture of the services received, provided by the AEs on various matters: S. Service rendered Date Gist of the contents of No. the e-mail 1 Financial review and February 25, 2008 Balance Sheet review support services November 6, 2007 Periodic monitoring of the cash balances and guidance thereon – Cash report – October 2007 (Refer Page 116, 118 of paper book) March 7, 2008 PLP Reports (Refer Page 117 of paper book) December 8, 2007, Account December 7, 2007, receivable/Payable – December 6, 2007 Intercompany reconciliation (Refer Page 121 to 125, 128 of paper book) February 6, 2008 Intercompany Inventory Reporting in RSD schedule
9 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
December 11, 2007 Eaton FAS 109 year end conference call (Refer Page 129 to 131 of paper book) November 6, 2007 Notification that the Oracle Account Balance reports have been updated 2 Operations review September 4, 2007 Update that the Encore services Extra Data Pass did not complete successfully (Refer Page 113 to 114 of paper book) September 17, 2007 Oracle Login issues (Refer Page 126 of paper book) 3 Information Technology September 15, 2008 Encore training („IT‟) infrastructure September 09, 2008 (Refer Page 109 to 112 support services August 21, 2008 of paper book) August 20, 2008 August 15, 2008 September 21, 2007, Set up and re-set of Keyfob August 29, 2007, PIN September 07, 2007, (Refer Page 119 to 120, September 03, 2007, 131 to 133 of paper August 29, 2007 book) 3.6 Despite the aforementioned evidences, the AO/DRP/TPO rejected the bench marking analysis done in the Transfer Pricing study in a summarily manner without providing any cogent reason. Further, the the TPO / DRP erred in applying / upholding the Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") method incorrectly to benchmark the aforesaid international transactions without identifying the comparable uncontrolled transaction which is a pre-requisite to apply the CUP method observing that (a) the payment for availing the services has been made not on the basis of quantum of services availed; but on the basis of turnover of the respective companies availing services and (b) the benefit derived and the rendition of services has also not been proved by the Appellant. 3.7 It is vehemently submitted that the AO / DRP / TPO erred in computing the ALP of various services received as Nil for following reasons: - The cost base for provision is not unfounded. A certificate to this effect was filed during the transfer pricing proceedings for AY 2007-08. The contention of the TPO was that such cost along with the mark-up has been allocated on net turnover of the service recipient entity and not the basis of services rendered, therefore the same is not acceptable method for allocation. It would be appreciated that even if the allocation was on an indirect basis, the same could not have resulted in determining the ALP as "Nil'. The ALP has to be computed as per the methods prescribed under Chapter X of the Act and not arbitrarily. - It is submitted that the Appellant during the course of proceeding before the lower authorities had submitted that Eaton as a group is maintaining shared services for the Asia Specific Region under two entities, namely, Eaton China and Eaton Singapore. These entities are
10 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
aggregators of common services that are required by the Group. It was also submitted that by maintaining a common pool of services, all entities are getting benefits due to the reduced costs as against maintaining individual facilities for such services. The indirect allocation of costs of services has been accepted by the OECD. 3.8 Attention in this regard is invited to OECD Guidelines on Transfer Pricing which also recommends the indirect charge approach for intra- group services in certain circumstances. The relevant Paras from the OECD Guidelines are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Para 7.24 -In some cases, an indirect charge method may be necessary due to the nature of the service being provided. One example is where the proportion of the value of the services rendered to the various relevant entities cannot be quantified except on an approximate or estimated basis. This problem may occur, for example, where sales promotion activities carried on centrally (e.g. at international fairs, in the international press, or through other centralized advertising campaigns) may affect the quantity of goods manufactured or sold by a number of affiliates. Another case is where a separate recording and analysis of the relevant service activities for each beneficiary would involve a burden of administrative work that would be disproportionately heavy in relation to the activities themselves. In such cases, the charge could be determined by reference to an allocation among all potential beneficiaries of the costs that cannot be allocated directly, i.e. costs that cannot be specifically assigned to the actual beneficiaries of the various services. To satisfy the arm's length principle, the allocation method chosen must lead to a result that is consistent with what comparable independent enterprises would have been prepared to accept. See part c) of this subsection. Para 7.25 - the allocation might be based on turnover, or staff employed or some other basis. Whether the allocation method is appropriate may depend on the nature and usage of the service. For example, the usage or provision of payroll services may be more related to the number of staff than to turnover, while the allocation of the stand by cost of priority computer back up could be allocated in the proportion to relevant expenditure on computer equipment by group members 7.27 When an indirect charge method is used, the relationship between the charge and the services provided may be obscured and it may become difficult to evaluate the benefit provided. Indeed, it may mean that the enterprise being charged for a service itself has not related the charge to the service. Consequently, there is an increased risk of double taxation because it may be more difficult to determine a deduction for costs incurred on behalf of group members if compensation cannot be readily identified, or for the recipient of the service to establish a deduction for any amount paid if it is unable to demonstrate that services have been provided."
11 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
3.9 It is submitted that CUP method cannot be applied for the services received for the following reasons: The Appellant did not avail similar services from any independent unrelated company in India. Hence, there is no internal CUP available. Also there is no information available in the public domain or has been provided by the TPO (in his order) for similar kind of transaction between independent parties, and thus, an external CUP is also not available. The TPO has failed to provide any reasons for rejecting TNMM method, making the order as non-speaking to that extent. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of IIjin Automotive Private Ltd vs ACIT ITA No.2182/Mds/2010], wherein, it was categorically held that an order would be regarded as non-speaking if the TPO/AO have failed to provide reasons for adopting a method other than the one adopted by the taxpayer. 3.10 It will be appreciated that as per TP provisions contained under Chapter X of the Act, the ALP of an international transaction is required to be determined as per the methods prescribed under the Act. The ALP of the international transaction pertaining to shared services was determined by the Appellant using TNMM method, which was rejected and the TPO sought to apply CUP, albeit, erroneously. The TPO/CIT(A) have disregarded the economic analysis conducted by the Appellant and determined/upheld the ALP of the transaction as 'Nil' by applying CUP method without identifying the comparable uncontrolled transactions which is a pre-requisite to apply the CUP method in terms of the provisions of the Act. 3.11 In this regard, it is submitted that the TPO‟s role is limited to examining whether or not the method adopted to determine the ALP is the most appropriate and also whether the comparables selected are appropriate or not. it is not part of the TPO‟s jurisdiction to consider whether or not the expenditure which has been incurred by the respondent assessee passed the test of Section 37 of the Act and / or genuineness of the expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on following decisions : CIT vs Lever India Exports Ltd. [2017] 292 CTR 393 (Bom) CIT vs Merck Ltd. [2016] 389 ITR 70 (Bom) CIT vs Kodak India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 288 CTR 46 (Bom) Pr. CIT vs R.A.K. Ceramics India (P.) Ltd. [2017] 246 Taxman 85 (AP) 3.12 Reliance is placed on the following decisions wherein the Tribunal has deleted the TP adjustment holding that the value of international transactions cannot be 'Nil' by applying CUP method and that an expenditure cannot be disallowed based on the so called 'benefit test': Emerson Climate Technologies (India) Ltd. vs DCIT [2018] taxmann.com 125 (Pune-Trib.) CIT vs Johnson & Johnson Limited: [2017]247 Taxman 136 (Bombay) DCIT vs Diebold Software Services (P.)Ltd.: [2014]48 taxmann.com 26 (Mumbai) AWB India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT: [2015]166 TTJ 524 (Del- Trib.) Nimbus Communications Ltd vs ACIT [2014]149 ITD 508 (Mum - Trib)
12 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
Ericsson India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT [2012]17 ITR(T) 79 (Del) Merck Ltd vs DCIT [2014]148 ITD 513 (Mum - Trib.) Quintiles Research (India) Private Ltd vs DCIT [2014]63 SOT 57 (Bang - Trib.) TNS India Pvt Ltd v ACIT: [2014]32 ITR (T) 44 (Hyd) Durovalves India (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT ITA No. 2483 (PN) OF 2012 (Pune) AXA Technologies Shared Services Pvt Ltd vs DCIT: ITA No 659/Bang/2012 Hero Motorcycle & Scooter India (P) Ltd vs DCIT ITA No 406 (Delhi) 2016 3.13 Further, reliance can also be placed on ruling of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of NLC Nalco India Limited : ITA NO. 529/Kol/2008 wherein Tribunal held that the TPO / CIT(A) was incorrect in determining the ALP of intra-group charges as Nil on the ground that no evidence of benefit received by taxpayer and the TPO order is not indicative of existence of circumstances specified in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3). 3.14 The above principal was also ruled in the case of Nielson India Pvt Ltd. [TS-347-ITAT-2016-Mum], wherein the Tribunal held that TPO/DRP not justified in determining ALP at Nil on ground of furnishing of no documentary evidence despite furnishing of details of services as well as allocation of cost pertaining to these services by the tax payer. 4. Evidence of receipt of Services and benefit derived: 4.1 It is submitted that the TPO/DRP have erred in disregarding the fact that the Appellant had received the services from AEs for which it had made the payments in accordance with written agreements and have further erred in asking for detailed evidence regarding receipt of services which is not mandated by Rule 100 of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ("Rules"). 4.2 At the outset, it is submitted that the fact that there are written agreements in place for the payments made, should be a reasonable basis to confirm that the payments are legitimate. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Delhi Tribunal decision in the case of Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd vs DCIT (2010] 15 ITR(T) 168 (Delhi) wherein the Tribunal has held that legally binding agreements entered into between parties cannot be disregarded without assigning cogent reasons. 4.3 Furthermore, it is submitted that the services by their very nature are intangible. Accordingly, the evidences regarding availing such services and the benefits received as a result of availing such services can be best demonstrated by narrations and descriptions (along with certain commercial circumstances warranting such services) and not merely by way of documentary evidences. 4.4 However, despite these limitations, the Appellant submitted certain e- mail correspondence, demonstrating that the services were actually received. The correspondence spans across treasury support, financial & accounting review and support, internal audit/operations review services, tax related services, human resource support and administration & management support services. (Refer pages 116 to 133 of the paper book). The TPO/DRP has erroneously ignored such correspondence as evidence, whereas this correspondence conclusively proves the receipt of services.
13 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
4.5 It is reiterated that by their very nature, the services received are business support functions that help in improvement of business operations and performance, and their effects cannot be measured using tangible parameters. However, as with other supporting activities, the effect of utilisation of such services can be seen over a period of time on the overall business performance. 4.6 It is pertinent to note that while the increased turnover could be a result of number of factors, the various services have also contributed to a certain extent. Further, the services received from the AEs certainly have played an important role in the improvement of the business processes of the Appellant. 4.7 In view of the above, the TPO/DRP have erred in concluding that no benefits were received by the Appellant by making such payments to the AEs, as the Appellant could not quantify the benefits. In this regard, it is submitted that if the intention of the law was quantification of benefits for each international transaction, the Act wouldn't have prescribed the five methods explicitly, along with the mechanism for its application, for the purpose of determining the arm's length nature of the international transactions. 4.8 In view of the above, it is submitted that the documentary evidence in the form of e-mail correspondences, certificates issued by Eaton China and Eaton Singapore and the copies of the relevant Agreements should be given due cognizance and accordingly, the book value of the international transaction be established as its ALP in accordance with the TP analysis conducted by the Appellant. 4.9 In addition to the above, it is submitted that the payment towards these services was necessitated out of commercial expediency and the Revenue cannot sit in the arm chair of the assessee for determining business expediency of the expenditure incurred. 4.10 Reliance in this regard is placed on the recent decisions of this Hon'ble Bench in the cases of Emerson Climate Technologies (India) Limited vs DCIT: ITA Nos. 2182/PUN/2013 and 211/PUN/2015 and Eaton Fluid Power Limited vs ACIT bearing ITA No. 45/PUN/2013 wherein it was held that the TPO cannot sit in the judgement of business module of assessee and the role of the TPO is to determine arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee and whether the same is at arm's length when compared with similar transactions undertaken by external entities or internal comparables. 4.11 Reliance is placed on the Delhi High Court decision, in the case of EKL Appliances Limited vs CIT: [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) wherein the Court, in the context of TP provisions, has held that it is not necessary for an assessee to show that any legitimate expenditure incurred by him was incurred out of necessity. Hon'ble Court further observed as under: "So long as the expenditure or payment has been demonstrated to have been incurred or laid out for the purposes of business, it is no concern of the TPO to disallow the same on any extraneous reasoning. As provided in the OECD guidelines, he is expected to examine the international transaction as he actually finds the same and then make suitable adjustment but a wholesale disallowance of the expenditure, particularly on the grounds which have been given by the TPO is not contemplated or authorized"
14 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
4.12 Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following case laws wherein the Courts !Tribunals have consistently have consistently held that the Revenue cannot question the commercial expediency of the assessee: SA Builders Ltd vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs Walchand & Co Ltd [1967]65 ITR 381 (SC) CIT vs B. Dalmia Cement Ltd [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Del) CIT vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC) CIT vs Oracle India (P) Ltd [2011] 199 TAXMAN 181 (Delhi) Hive Communication Private Ltd vs CIT [2013]353 ITR 200 (Del) 4.13 It may also be pointed out that recently the CBDT vide notification G.S.R. 557(E) dated 7th June, 2017, has notified the Safe Harbour Rules, inter alia, for low end intra group services. The CBDT has also acknowledged a mark-up of 5% for such services. It would be appreciated that even from the approach suggested by the CBDT the services received by the Appellant meets the transfer price requirements.” 5. Aggregation of closely linked transactions: 5.1 It is submitted that various services received by the Appellant are integral to the operations of the business as a whole It is to be appreciated that the said services are interlinked and intertwined to the running of the business as a whole and should not be bench marked separately. It is a part of the cost base of the operations and therefore, all the international transactions undertaken by the Appellant were aggregated together and bench marked by testing the net margin vis-a-vis the third party comparables at entity level. 5.2 It is pertinent to mention that bench marking of all other international transactions other than the impugned international transaction has been accepted by the TPO using entity vide TNMM. In view thereof, when expenditure incurred for these services forms the cost base of the aggregated cost used for adoption of TNMM at entity level and the bench marking of other international transactions (predominantly distribution transaction) stands accepted, the said services should not be bench marked separately, warranting an adjustment. 5.3 In this regard, reliance is placed on the recent decision of this Hon'ble Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eaton Fluid Power Limited vs ACIT bearing ITA No. 45/PUN/2013 vide order dated March 12, 2018 wherein the Hon'ble Bench deleted the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO in respect of international transaction of receipt of information technology services by treating it as Nil. It is pertinent to mention that in this case, Eaton Fluid Power Limited ("EFPL"), an Eaton group entity, had also entered into a Shared Services Agreement with Eaton China (Investment) Company Limited ("Eaton China") for availing IT services. The TPO had made a transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the said international transaction by treating the arm's length price as Nil on the ground that EFPL failed to prove actual rendition of services and cost-benefit analysis even though EFPL had submitted various documentary evidences including copies of e-mail correspondences on sample basis, copies of debit notes, certificate issued by Eaton China certifying factum of provision of services by it and that the charge of services comprised of cost plus 5% mark-up. EFPL, in appeal, had also challenged the segregation of the subject international transaction
15 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
and application of CUP instead of TNMM method on an aggregated basis. This Hon'ble Bench "A" of the Pune Tribunal deleted the adjustment made the TPO by holding as under : TPO cannot sit in the judgement of business module of assessee and its intention to avail or not avail any services from its associated enterprises. The role of the TPO is to determine arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee and whether the same is at arm's length when compared with similar transactions undertaken by external entities or internal comparables. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Emerson Climate Technologies (India) Limited vs DCIT: ITA Nos. 21821PUNI2013 and 2111PUNI2015 (refer Para 29); The IT services availed by the assessee also relate to the business carried on by the assessee and hence, there is merit in the plea of the assessee in aggregating the same with other international transactions undertaken by the assessee with its associated enterprises (refer Para 30); The additional evidences, including the certificate issued by Eaton China submitted by the assessee establish its case of availment of IT services (refer Para 30); The international transaction of IT services availed has to be aggregated with other transactions being instrically linked to other transactions undertaken by the assessee during the year and the same has to be bench marked applying internal TNMM method as in case of other transactions (para Para 38). 5.4 In view of the above, it is submitted that the Appellant had also entered into similar agreements with its AE's for availment of services. The Appellant had also submitted sample e-mail correspondences and certificates issued by its AE's for establishing that services were availed by the Appellant and that the basis of charging for such services by its AE on cost plus specified mark-up. Further, in the instant case too, the TPO segregated the subject international transaction pertaining to availment of services from Eaton China and benchmarked it by applying CUP even though this transaction was closely linked with other transactions entered by the Appellant during the year. It is the humble submission of the Appellant that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO should be deleted following the decision in the case of EFPL (supra) since the factual matrix is identical. 5.5 In this regard, reliance is further placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that closely linked transactions should be aggregated and benchmarked together: Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P) Ltd vs CIT [2015]374 ITR 118 (Delhi) Magneti Marelli Powertrain India (P.) Ltd. vs CIT Delhi) [2016]389 ITR 469 (Delhi) Avery Dennison (India) (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT ITA Nos. 4869 & 4934/De1/2014; upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PrCIT vs Avery Dennison (India) Pvt Ltd (ITA 386/2016) Cummins India Limited vs ACIT: [2015]68 SOT 14 (Pune-Trib.) Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs ACIT ITA No. 598 of 2013 (Mum) Kusum Healthcare (P) Ltd vs ACIT [2015] 42 ITR (T) 77 (Del)
16 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
Yash Jewellery (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT [2016]157 ITD 340 (Mum - Trib.) Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT [2016]160 ITD 465 (Bangalore - Trib.) Goodyear India Ltd. vs DCIT IT A Nos. 5650/De1/2011, 6240/Del/2012 and 916/Del/2014 Goldstar Jewellery Ltd. vs JCIT [2015] 42 ITR(T) 112 (Mum) Syngenta India Ltd. vs ACIT ITA Nos. 8534/Mum/2011 & 649/Mum/2013
Ground No. 5 - Payment made to Eaton US for Adnet and internet charges 6.1 During the subject assessment year, the Appellant made payment of INR 10,44,713 to Eaton US on account of reimbursement of communication costs in terms of the WHQ Agreement between Eaton US and the Appellant (Refer pages 93 to 108 of the paper book). However, TPO has not appreciated these payments were supported by third party invoices, while determining the ALP of the shared services as Nil, the TPO has made an addition in this respect on the ground that the Appellant was not able to establish the benefits received from such services, without appreciating that the same represented reimbursement and hence, devoid of any profit element. 6.2 In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that the amount of reimbursement represents expenditure for Adnet and Internet charges, intranet charges etc. paid to Eaton US. It covers numerous charges for use of devices such as Mobile, blackberry devices, Tele- conferencing, Video conferencing facility, access to email, e Room, Instant Messaging Charges, etc. During the course of TP proceedings, the Appellant vide submission dated October 18, 2014 (Refer pages 83 to 90 of the paper book), submitted the sample copies of invoices substantiating the receipt of services. 6.3 It is further submitted that Eaton US has established a worldwide telecommunication system with AT&T. This system is available for both secure computer data transmission services, individual worldwide, calling capability while employees are travelling on company business and for large group conference calls and video conferencing. It also provides facilities such as Global RELACS - a safe and secure system of connection whereby an authorized individual can remedy and securely connect himself or herself in to Eaton US's worldwide computer system from wherever located, either from home or while on the road, at hotel when travelling. 6.4 In this regard, it is submitted that the Appellant was availing the aforesaid facilities for which the Eaton US initially discharged the costs to third parties providing such services. Eaton US then recharged the cost which is attributable to the services availed by the Appellant. Thus, it was essentially an arrangement whereby the payment was made centrally by Eaton US to third party service provider and the share of group entities to such costs was recharged back. Eaton US was only acting as a facilitator without any intent to earn profit from such arrangement. 6.5 In view of the above, it is imperative to note that the payments made to Eaton US did not involve any profit element and hence, should not be considered while proposing an adjustment in relation to various services received. In such a case, the adjustment amount would be INR 22,35,402."
17 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
4.5 The ld. AR submitted that similar additions were made by the TPO in the case of assessee‟s sister concern Eaton Fluid Power Ltd. in assessment year 2008-09. The matter travelled up to the Tribunal. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of assessee‟s sister concern Eaton Fluid Power Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 92 taxmann.com 158 held that the TPO cannot sit in judgment of business module of assessee and its intention to avail or not to avail any services from its associated enterprises, the role of TPO is to determine ALP of international transactions undertaken by the assessee.
On the other hand Shri Rajeev Kumar representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned orders and prayed for dismissing the appeals of assessee.
We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have also considered various documents filed by the assessee and the decisions rendered during the course of making submissions. The assessee in ground Nos. 2 to 4 of the appeal has assailed the assessment order in making the additions on account of transfer pricing adjustment in respect of services received by the assessee from its AEs.
During the course of submissions the assessee has drawn our attention to the agreements entered into by the assessee with Eaton China and Eaton Singapore. A perusal of the shared services and internal audit services agreements dated 01-01-2005 between the assessee and Eaton China shows that the Eaton China was to provide following services to the assessee :
18 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
Perform Sarbanes Oxley validation on behalf of the management of the local entities within Asia Pacific region; Perform internal audits for in-scope locations based on analysis of location, annual turnover, risk factor and past audit issues; Special audit/review as requested by group management; Closing balance sheet review or opening balance sheet review as requested by group management, and Provide accounting assistance as requested by local management.
The ld. AR has further referred to another shared services agreement between Eaton China and the assessee dated 01-01-2005. According to which the following services were to be provided by Eaton China to the assessee. Accounting/Finance HR Treasury Tax Asia Pacific Regional Administration and Management
The said agreements are at pages 37 to 62 of the paper book.
The ld. AR submitted that after the services were received from Headquarters, over all business performance of the company has considerably improved. The ld. AR referring to the chart of sales and Operating Profit/Sales at page 65 of the paper book pointed that from the negative growth of -4.13% in Financial Year 2003-04 the assessee has achieved OP/Sales of 15.58% in the Financial Year 2007-08.
19 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
We find that the TPO and the DRP without properly analyzing the documents furnished by the assessee to substantiate the services rendered by the AEs and the benefits derived by the assessee over the period of time have erred in making the addition.
We observe that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of assessee‟s sister concern Eaton Fluid Power Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) had occasion to deal with identical issue where TPO made adjustment in respect of international transactions in respect of IT services received from its AEs. The TPO held that the assessee has failed to prove the receipt of services and benefit derived from services with supporting evidence and hence determined the ALP of the transactions as Nil. The Tribunal placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Emerson Climate Technologies (India) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 90 taxmann.com 125 held : “29. Now, coming to the issue of transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO on account of services availed by the assessee from its associated enterprises and taking the value of said international transactions at Nil. In the first instance, we hold that TPO cannot sit in the judgment of business module of assessee and its intention to avail or not to avail any services from its associated enterprises. The role of TPO is to determine the arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee and whether the same is at arm's length price when compared with similar transactions undertaken by external entities or internal comparables.”
The Tribunal further after analyzing the agreements and services of the Eaton Group held as under : “30. The second aspect which needs to be considered in the present case is the services availed by assessee from its associated enterprises. The assessee is a group concern of worldwide Eaton group of companies and the intention to avail the said services is to carry out his business on worldwide platform. The total turnover of assessee for the year was ₹ 173 crores and the services availed from associated enterprises were intermingled to the extent that the Tribunal in earlier years has directed that for benchmarking international transactions undertaken by the assessee, import of raw materials for manufacturing purpose and export of finished goods should be
20 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
aggregated. The information technology services availed by the assessee also relate to aforesaid business carried on by the assessee and hence, we find merit in the plea of assessee in aggregating the same with other international transactions undertaken by the assessee with its associated enterprises. Accordingly, we hold so. In any case, the assessee in the reasons for filing additional evidence has pointed out that information was filed before the TPO along with agreement and certificate of Eaton China, but thereafter, no other query was raised by TPO or any clarification was sought in respect of information technology services availed. The assessee thus, was under the bonafide belief that the documents and explanation furnished by it has been accepted. Further, the assessee before us has pointed out that though it is filing additional evidence but because of confidentiality clause, such information cannot be shared as it would affect the business transactions of assessee. We have gone through the additional evidence filed by the assessee and we are of the view that the assessee has established its case of availment of said services in the field of information technology. In addition, the assessee has also filed certificate from its associated enterprise dated 22.04.2011 i.e. during the course of TP proceedings, under which there is certification of factum of provision of services by Eaton China to the assessee and also basis for charging of such charge i.e. cost plus 5% markup. It was also confirmed by Eaton China that similar services were availed by other Eaton group companies and they were charged on the same basis as in the case of assessee. The assessee had also filed on record copies of debit notes and other JV vouchers raised during the year under consideration justifying its case of availing the said services and payment in lieu thereof. 31. In the above said facts and circumstances in the issue involved, we hold that there is no merit in observations of TPO in holding that the assessee had not availed any services, hence the arm's length price of international transactions is to be adopted at Nil. 32. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue had placed heavy reliance on the ratio laid down by Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), which in turn, has also taken into consideration the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in Delloite Consulting India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 21 (Mum). In the facts of the case before the Tribunal, the TPO had determined arm's length price of international transactions at Nil keeping in view the factual position as to whether in a comparable case, similar payments would have been made or not in the terms of agreement. The Hon‟ble High Court taking note of the issue before it observed that neither Revenue nor the Court must question the commercial wisdom of assessee or replace its own assessment or commercial viability of the transaction. However, the details of specific activities for such cost was incurred and the attended benefit to the assessee had to be considered since the same was not considered, the matter was remanded back to the file of concerned Assessing Officer for arm's length price adjustment by the TPO, in accordance with law. The said judgment is dated 23.05.2014. 33. The Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the case of R.A.K. Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while deciding the issue of fulfillment of conditions of benefit test as raised by the TPO vis-à-vis royalty payments made by assessee @ 3% which was restricted to 2% of net ex-factory sale
21 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
proceeds, held that it was incumbent upon the TPO after rejecting comparables selected by the assessee to come up with other comparables so as to justify the reduction of royalty payments. Further, no such exercise was undertaken by the TPO and by going into whys and wherefores of the improvement in the net sales and profits of assessee, the TPO held that there was no justification for payment of royalty @ 3% to associated enterprises by the assessee. The Hon‟ble High Court held This reasoning is without legal basis of law as it is not for the TPO to decide the best business strategy for the assessee. The Hon‟ble High Court also held that This whimsical fixation by the TPO amounts to an arbitrary and unbridled exercise of power. Thus, the order of Tribunal rejecting the case of TPO was upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court. 34. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) interpreted the provisions of section 92B(2) of the Act. The facts of the case as noted by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court were as under:- “3. The respondent assessee is an Indian subsidiary of M/s. Eastman Kodak Co. USA (EKC). During the previous year relevant to the assessment year the respondent assessee sold its imaging business to one M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. The buyer company i.e. M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. was a Indian subsidiary of M/s. Carestream Inc. an USA company. The case of the respondent assessee was that the transaction of sale of imaging business by the respondent assessee to M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. was a transaction between the two domestic non Associated Enterprises. Hence, the provision of Chapter X of the Act would have no application. Thus, had not even declared this transaction in its 3 CEB report. 4. However the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) while examining another Transfer Pricing issue came across the impugned transaction. It held on the basis of Section 92B(2) of the Act that even if the transaction between Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. was between two domestic non Associated Enterprises, yet it would still be considered to be an International transaction and Chapter X of the Act would be applicable. This on the basis that the holding companies of both the respondent assessee as well as M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. had entered into a global agreement for sale of its business. This global agreement was prior in point of time to the sale of imaging business by the respondent assessee to M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer passed a draft Assessment order under section 144C of the Act on the basis of the order of the TPO.” 35. Two aspects were decided by the Tribunal of section 92B(2) of the Act, which came into effect from 01.04.2015 and prior to that the transaction could not be deemed to be an international transaction. It also held that no addition on account of arm's length price was warranted since the TPO failed to apply any of the methods prescribed under section 92C of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court vide para 10 held as under:- “10. We must also record the fact that the ALP was arrived at by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) by not adopting any of the methods
22 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
prescribed under section 92C of the Act. The method to determine the ALP adopted was not one of the prescribed methods for computing the ALP. It was not even any method prescribed by the Board. At the relevant time, i.e. for A.Y. 2008- 09 Section 92C of the Act did not provide for other method as provided in Section 92C(1)(f) of the Act. The impugned order of the Tribunal holds that the method adopted by the Revenue to determine the ALP was alien to the methods prescribed under section 92C of the Act. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal declined to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-determining the ALP by adopting one of the methods as listed out in Section 92C of the Act. This finding of the Tribunal has also not been challenged by the Revenue.” 36. In the facts of the case before the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. M/s. Lever India Exports Ltd. (supra), the TPO while evaluating the transactions between the parties held that the same were on principal to principal basis and no reimbursement of advertisement expenses by the respondent assessee to its associated enterprises could be allowed. Consequently, he determined the arm's length price at Nil by virtue of disallowing the expenditure. The Hon‟ble High Court in such circumstances observed as under:- “7. We note that the Tribunal has recorded the fact that the respondent assessee has launched new products which involved huge advertisement expenditure. The sharing of such expenditure by the respondent assessee is a strategy to develop its business. This results in improving the brand image of the products, resulting in higher profit to the respondent assessee due to higher sales. Further, it must be emphasized that the TPO‟s jurisdiction was to only determine the ALP of an International transaction. In the above view, the TPO has to examine whether or not the method adopted to determine the ALP is the most appropriate and also whether the comparables selected are appropriate or not. It is not part of the TPO‟s jurisdiction to consider whether or not the expenditure which has been incurred by the respondent assessee passed the test of Section 37 of the Act and / or genuineness of the expenditure. This exercise has to be done, if at all, by the Assessing Officer in exercise of his jurisdiction to determine the income of the assessee in accordance with the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not disallowed the expenditure but only adopted the TPO‟s determination of ALP of the advertisement expenses. Therefore, the issue for examination in this appeal is only the issue of ALP as determined by the TPO in respect of advertisement expenses. The jurisdiction of the TPO is specific and limited i.e. to determine the ALP of an International transaction in terms of Chapter X of the Act read with Rule 10A to 10E of the Income Tax Rules. The determination of the ALP by the respondent assessee of its advertisement expenses has not been disputed on the parameters set out in Chapter X of the Act and the relevant Rules. In fact, as found both by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal that neither the method selected as the most appropriate method to determine the ALP is challenged nor the comparables taken by the respondent assessee is challenged by the TPO. Therefore, the
23 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
ad-hoc determination of ALP by the TPO dehors Section 92C of the Act cannot be sustained.” (underline provided by us for emphasis) 37. In view of the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and CIT Vs. M/s. Lever India Exports Ltd. (supra), the proposition laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi (supra) stands modified. 38. Applying the above said principle and in view of the facts and circumstances as referred to by us in the paras hereinabove, we hold the international transactions of information technology services availed has to be aggregated with other transactions being intrinsically linked to other international transactions undertaken by the assessee during the year and the same has to be benchmarked applying internal TNMM method as in the case of other international transactions. Further, we also reverse the order of TPO in holding that the assessee has not availed any services in view of various documents filed by the assessee and also certificate of Eaton China, which was filed during the course of TP proceedings evidencing not only the availment of services but also the basis of cost for such services. Similar services were availed by other Eaton group entities from Eaton China and its certificate that the same has also charged at the same rates as charged to the assessee. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we reverse the order of TPO / Assessing Officer in taking the value of international transactions of Information Technology Services availed at Nil and delete the adjustment made. Allowing the claim of assessee, the ground of appeal No.8 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed.”
In the present case, we find that the assessee has furnished various documents before the authorities below to substantiate the services rendered by Eaton Singapore and Eaton China. The TPO instead of analyzing the ALP of the transactions on the basis of documents furnished went on to a different tangent to hold that no services were rendered by AEs to the assessee and the assessee has not derived any benefit from the alleged services provided by the overseas group entities.
Thus, in view of the facts of the case and the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of assessee‟s sister concern, we deem it appropriate to set aside the assessment order and remit the this issue back to the file of TPO/Assessing Officer to determine the ALP of transactions, in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly.
24 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
Needless to say that the Assessing Officer/TPO while re-adjudicating this issue shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. Thus, ground Nos. 2 to 4 raised in the appeal by assessee for assessment year 2008-09 are allowed for statistical purpose.
In ground No. 5 of appeal the assessee has made an alternate prayer to allow reimbursement of charges on account of INR 10,44,713. Since, we have accepted the primary plea of the assessee raised in ground Nos. 2 to 4, the alternate prayer made by the assessee in ground No. 5 has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.
The ground No. 1 raised in appeal is general in nature, hence, requires no adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No. 119/PUN/2013 for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
ITA No. 1373/PUN/2014 (A.Y. 2007-08)
The assessee in appeal has assailed the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by raising following grounds : “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition to the income of the Appellant amounting to Rs.32,28,914, on account of transfer pricing adjustment, made by the Assessing Officer(ÄO”)/Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO"), in respect of international transaction pertaining to payments made by the Appellant to its associated enterprises ("AEs") for Headquarter ("HQ") services. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the payment for HQ services were not at arm's length and in upholding the arm's length price ("ALP") of the same to be Nil, as determined by the AO/TPO. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the economic analysis and methodology adopted by the Appellant, being Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM"), for benchmarking the international transaction of payments to AEs for HQ services, without any cogent reason, and in further
25 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
upholding the application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") method to benchmark such transaction, in a manner, which is not in conformity with the methodology provided under the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that no services were rendered by the AEs to the Appellant and in alleging that the purported cost allocation to the Appellant for the HQ services is unjustified, in the absence of appropriate allocation keys. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in charging interest under sections 2348 and 2340 of the Act.”
The assessee has filed written submissions for assessment year 2007-08 on similar lines. Since, the grounds raised in both the appeals and the facts of the case are similar in all respects, the written submissions of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 are not reproduced for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetitiveness.
Both the sides are unanimous in stating that the issue raised in the assessment year 2007-08 is identical to the one in assessment year 2008- 09. The TPO has made adjustment in respect of similar services rendered by Eaton China and Eaton Singapore during the period relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. The agreements on which the assessee is placing reliance are same for assessment year 2007-08. Since, the relief sought in the grounds for appeal in assessment year 2007-08 is similar to the one as raised in grounds for assessment year 2008-09, the findings given by us while adjudicating ground Nos. 2 to 4 for the assessment year 2008-09 would mutatis mutandis apply to the grounds raised by the assessee in assessment year 2007-08. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised in the appeal by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose on similar terms.
26 ITA Nos. 119/PUN/2013 & 1373/PUN/2014
In ground No. 5 of the appeal, the assessee has assailed charging of interest u/s. 234B and 234D of the Act. Charging of interest u/s. 234B and 234D is consequential and mandatory, hence, ground No. 5 raised in appeal by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No. 1373/PUN/2014 for assessment year 2007-08 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
To sum up, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 11th day of September, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (अननऱ चतुवेदी / Anil Chaturvedi) (ववकास अवस्थी / Vikas Awasthy) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 11th September, 2018 RK आदेश की प्रनतलऱवऩ अग्रेवर्त / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Pune 4. The DIT (IT/TP), Pune ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रनत // True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
ननजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune