The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3574 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 92C
Where TPO made adjustment towards ALP on account of interest chargeable on delayed outstanding receivable by questioning extended credit period given to AEs, considering that assessee already factored in impact of receivables on working capital and thereby on its pricing/profitability vis-Ã -vis that of its comparables, any further adjustment was invalid.
|
Transfer pricing - Computation of ALP - Adjustment towards interest on outstanding receivables of AEs -
Assessee was engaged in export of manufactured medicines and export of traded medicines. TPO made adjustment towards ALP on account of interest chargeable on delayed receivable. It was alleged that delayed realization of outstanding receivables beyond 180 days, for supplies made to AE, was not in accordance with normal trade practices and reflected an arrangement of international transactions which were intended to benefit the AE. Held: Assessee gave all details and TPO in his order and without discussing calculations and evidences produced by assessee, simplicitor, made adjustment. There was no contrary facts given by TPO in consonance with the evidence produced by assessee before him. Calculation given by revenue counsel in his submissions was not in-consonance with the actual figures and the calculations considered by the TPO as well as DRP at time of assessment proceedings. Facts of assessee's case were identical to that of assessment year 2010-11, which was already decided by Delhi High Court in assessee's favour, wherein it was held that assessee already factored in impact of receivables on working capital and thereby on its pricing/profitability vis-Ã -vis that of its comparables. No distinguishing facts were pointed out by revenue.
Followed:Pr. CIT-V v. Kusum Health Care (P) Ltd. [ITA No. 84/Del/2017) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4367 (Del-HC). Distinguished:Techbooks International (P) Ltd. v. Asstt.CIT [ITA No. 6102/Del/2016, Order, dated 6-7-2020].
REFERRED : Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 60 Taxman 248(SC) : 1992 TaxPub(DT) 858 (SC), CIT v. Livingstones [TS-962-HC-2016 (BOM)-TP], CIT-I v. Cotton Naturals (i) pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 233/2014] : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1361 (Del-HC), CIT-9 v. Indo American Jewellery Ltd. [TS-3-HC-2013(BOM)], Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 23 Taxmann.com 265 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2636 (Del-HC), Sophos Technologies Private Limited (Formerly known as Cyberoam Technologies (P) Ltd) v. Dy. CIT (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 374 (Ahd.-Trib) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 8057 (Ahd-Trib), Axis Risk Consulting Services Private Limited v. DCIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 103(Del. Trib) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1933 (Del-Trib), Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, Range-2, New Delhi. [TS-152-ITAT-2014(Del] : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2498 (Del-Trib)].
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2013-14
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT |