TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

ITA No.1504 & 1505/Del/2018 & 2015/Del/2018

Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 304 held that it is for the Revenue to firstly discharge the onus to prove the existence of an international transaction between the taxpayer and its AE and only thereafter ALP of international transactions involving AMP can he computed.

24 The taxpayer has contested before Id. DRP that incurring of AMP expenses are not international transactions and BET method has no statutory basis to infer the existence of international transactions qua AMP expenses, however, the Id. DRP has proceeded to hold inter alia that incurring of AMP expenses is an international transaction and directed to exclude the routine selling and distribution expenses and directed the TPO to use the cost plus method and further directed to apply the markup on excess AMP expenses as per sub-clause (ii) of Rule 108(I)(c).

ITA No.1504 & 1505/Del/2018 & 2015/Del/2018 turnover is from the sale of its manufacturing in India. Moreover, without prejudice, it is the case of the taxpayer that despite the directions issued by the Id. DRP, the TPO has wrongfully proceeded to consider selling and distribution expenses as part of the AMP expenses for the purposes of applying the bright line test.

ITA No.1504 & 1505/Del/2018 & 2015/Del/2018 the matter is pending before Hon'ble Apex Court and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court would be binding upon all the authorities. In view of the above, we set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. We hold that as per the facts of the case and the legal position as of now and discussed above in this order, the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO in respect of AMP expenses is not sustainable. However, if the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which is under consideration. before the Hon'ble Apex Court is modified or reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then the Assessing Officer would pass the order afresh considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. In those circumstances, he will also allow opportunity of being heard to the assessee. "

7. It is not in dispute that the case of the assessee has been that the primary engagement of the assessee is in manufacturing operations and the AMP expenditure incurred by it is to the benefit of its operations in India. In the case of the assessee, Tribunal took into consideration the submissions made by the Ld. DR that the matter relating to the international transaction involving AMP expenses is pending before the I-1°11'131e Apex Court and addition of the Hon'ble Apex Court would be binding upon all the authorities and therefore, while returning a finding that the assessee is a full- fledged manufacturer and the entire AMP expenses were incurred by it to enhance its sale in India and not for promoting the brand of its AE and for creating intangibles for its AE, the alleged excessive AMP expenditure does not fall in the category of international transaction and therefore the adjustment made by the Revenue on account of incurrence of AMP expenses is not sustainable in law, set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to act in accordance with the findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court to be given in the pending matters.

ITA No.1504 & 1505/Del/2018 & 2015/Del/2018

AMP expenditure does not fall in the category of international transaction and therefore the adjustment made by the Revenue on account of incurrence of AMP expenses is not sustainable in law, and set aside the orders of the authorities below. We, however, in consonance with the view taken by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2011-12, as in the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, restore the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to act in accordance with the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court to be given in the pending matters. We accordingly, allow ground No. 2 of assessee's appeal and grounds No. 3 to 12 of Revenue's appeal, for statistical purpose.”

2.3 Facts being identical, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case, as discussed above, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer with similar direction.

3.1 Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling of wrist watches and after selling services. Besides the above, the assessee also provides limited IT help desk and support services to AEs. As far as provision of ITES to the AE, the assessee benchmarked the transaction by adopting Transactional Net Margin Method 7 | P a g e

ITA No.1504 & 1505/Del/2018 & 2015/Del/2018 (TNMM) as, the most appropriate method with operating profit to total cost as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). The assessee selected 16 comparables in assessment year 2009-10 and 7 comparables in assessment year 2010-11. Since, the margin shown by the assessee in both the assessment years under dispute were within the acceptable range of the average margin of the comparables, the transaction with the AE was claimed to be at arm’s length.

The TPO, however, did not accept the benchmarking of the assessee. Re-characterizing the assessee as a software development service provider, the TPO rejected the comparables selected by the assessee in the ITES segment and introduced fresh comparables from software development services segment and accordingly, proposed adjustment in both the assessment years under dispute. Based on the adjustment proposed by the TPO, the Assessing Officer made additions in the assessment orders. Though, the assessee preferred appeals challenging the adjustment, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld them.

3.2 Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that similar erroneous approach was adopted by the TPO in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2011-12. While 8 | P a g e

ITA No.1504 & 1505/Del/2018 & 2015/Del/2018 deciding the issue, the Tribunal rejected the approach of the TPO in selection of comparables. He submitted, the decision of the Tribunal was upheld by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Thus, he submitted, once, the assessee is held to be an entity in ITES segment, it cannot be re-characterized as providing services under software development service segment. Thus, he submitted, the comparables selected by TPO, being functionally dissimilar, are not at all comparable to the assessee.

3.3 We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is a fact on record that the assessee provided services in ITES segment. In fact, in the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act, the TPO himself has stated that the assessee provides limited IT help desk and support services to the AEs. In spite of such factual position established on record, the TPO has gone forward to re-characterize the assessee as a software development service provider and selected fresh comparables in the software development segment. Unfortunately, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also completely misconceived the facts by approving the re-characterization of the assessee. It is observed, similar erroneous approach was adopted by the TPO 9 | P a g e

ITA No.1504 & 1505/Del/2018 & 2015/Del/2018 while proposing adjustment to similar transaction with the AEs in assessment year 2011-12. While deciding assessee’s objections on the issue, learned DRP accepted assessee’s business profile as an IT service provider and directed the AO/TPO to select comparables in ITES segment. However, the TPO again selected comparables providing Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) services. While deciding the issue in appeal, the Tribunal in dated 20.12.2018 rejected the comparables selected by the TPO. It is relevant to observe, while dismissing Revenue’s appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 2011-12, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal holding the assessee as an ITES segment company.

3.4 Thus, the benchmarking exercise undertaken by the TPO fails at the threshold itself. Consequently, the comparables selected by the TPO under the software development segment, being functionally different, cannot be treated as comparables to the assessee. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions.

ITA No.1504 & 1505/Del/2018 & 2015/Del/2018 ITA No.2013/Del/2018 for AY: 2009-10 (Revenue’s Appeal) for AY: 2010-11 (Revenue’s Appeal)

4.1 Briefly the facts are, in course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has debited certain amounts on account of advances written off. Being of the view that the deduction claimed by the assessee does not satisfy the condition of section 36(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction. The assessee contested the disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance.

4.2 We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is observed, identical issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. While deciding the issue, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance. As could be seen from the facts on record, certain trade advances in relation to the business operations could not be ITA No.1504 & 1505/Del/2018 & 2015/Del/2018 recovered even after long lapse of time. Therefore, the assessee has written them off in its books of account. In our view, the Assessing Officer made a fundamental error by holding that the deduction claimed comes under section 36(2) of the Act.

Undisputedly, the trade advances were in course of business.

Therefore, if the assessee was unable to recover such advances, it can be treated as business loss, hence, allowable. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue.

5.1 Having considered rival submissions, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). It is a fact on record that the assessee has incurred the brokerage 12 | P a g e

ITA No.1504 & 1505/Del/2018 & 2015/Del/2018 expenditure in the year under consideration. Therefore, the expenditure has to be allowed in the year under consideration.

Merely because the lease of office premises is for particular period, the expenditure actually incurred on brokerage cannot be spread over the period of lease. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th March, 2023