S. 263: CIT cannot revise the TPO’s transfer pricing order passed u/s 92CA(3). CIT also cannot revise s. 143(3) order because such order is not erroneous if it follows binding order of TPO

The Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 on the transfer pricing order passed u/s 92CA(3) by the TPO. As regards the assessment order, it cannot be said to be “erroneous” because the AO is bound by the transfer pricing order u/s 92CA(4) is binding on the AO. Consequently, the CIT’s order is without jurisdiction (Essar Steels Ltd 152 TTJ 265 (Mum) followed)

S. 14A & Rule 8D: If AO does not deal with assessee’s arguments, it means that he had not reached objective satisfaction that assessee’s method is incorrect & cannot invoke Rule 8D

The invoking of Rule 8D to compute the disallowance u/s 14A is neither automatic and nor is triggered merely because assessee has earned an exempt income. The invoking of rule 8D of the Rules is permissible only when the AO records the satisfaction in regard to the incorrectness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. This recording of satisfaction is a condition precedent in accordance with the law laid down in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co 328 ITR 81 (Bom) & Maxopp Investment Ltd 247 CTR 162 (Del)

S. 40(a)(i): Disallowance of payment to Non-residents without TDS violates ‘deduction neutrality non-discrimination‘ clause in DTAA as there is no similar bar for residents as per Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB)

In Rajeev Sureshbhai Gajwani 137 TTJ 1 (Ahd)(SB) it was held that differentiation simplicitor is enough to invoke the non-discrimination clause. Consequently, it will be contrary to the deduction neutrality clause in non-discrimination in the tax treaties if the provisions for deduction of payments to non-residents are more onerous than those applicable for payments to residents. The payments made to residents of Ireland, Denmark and Austria are protected by the deduction neutrality clauses and any pre-conditions for deductibility, which are harsher than payments made to the residents are ineffective in law. However, payments to the residents of Belgian, UK, Italy and Spain will not be entitled to the same protection under the omnibus non-discrimination clause of Article 24(1) based on nationality (Herbalife International 103 TTJ 78 (Del) referred)

Expenditure on discounting/factoring charges is not in the nature of interest for purposes of TDS u/s 194A or disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)

The term “interest” relates to a pre-existing debt, which implies a debtor creditor relationship. Unpaid consideration gives rise to a lien over goods sold and not for money lent as held in Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1963) 56 ITR 52 (SC) where interest on unpaid purchase price was not treated as interest on loan. It is clear from the definition that before any amount paid is construed as interest, it has to be established that the same is payable in respect of any money borrowed or debt incurred. According to us, discounting charges of Bill of Exchange or factoring charges of sale cannot be termed as interest. The assessee in the present case is acting as an agent. Now what is this is to be seen. A Del Credere is an agent, who, selling goods for his principal on credit, undertakes for an additional commission to sell only to persons for whom he can stand guarantee. His position is thus that of a surety who is liable to his principal should the vendee make default. The agreement between him and his principal need not be reduced to or evidenced by writing, for his undertaking is a guarantee. A Del Credere Agent is an agent who not only establishes a privity of contract between his principal and the third party, but who also guarantees to his principal the due performance of the contract by the third party. He is liable, however, only when the third party fails to carry out his contract, e.g., by insolvency. He is not liable to his principal if the third party refuses to carry out his contract, for example, if the buyer refuses to take delivery. In the present case before us the assessee has assessed the income as Del Credere being trading in goods and merchandise and also dealing in securities and which is assessed as income from business and not income from other sources. The expenditure incurred is also on account of business expenditure and not interest expenditure in the nature of interest falling u/s. 194A of the Act. Accordingly, these discount/factoring charges do not come within the purview of section 194A and assessee is not liable to TDS on these charges

Transfer Pricing: Law for applying Profit Split Method as per Rule 10B (1) (d) explained

The Profit Split Method as provided under Rule 10 B(1)(d) is applicable mainly in international transactions: (a) involving transfer of unique intangibles; (b) in multiple international transactions which are so interrelated that they cannot be valuated separately. The method specified in clause (ii) of Rule 10 B(1)(d) that the relative contribution made by each of associated enterprise should be evaluated on the basis of FAR analysis and on the basis of reliable external data. Thus, bench marking by selection of comparables is mandatory under this Method. The profits need to be split among the AEs on the basis of reliable external market data, which indicate how unrelated parties have split the profits in similar circumstances. For practical application, we are of the view that, bench marking with reliable external market data is to be done, in case of residual profit split method, at the first stage, where the combined net profits are partially allocated to each enterprise so as to provide it with an appropriate base returns keeping in view the nature of the transaction. The residual profits may be split as per relative contribution of the Associated Enterprise. In our view at this stage of splitting of residual profits, no bench marking is necessary, as it is not practicable. Nevertheless, for splitting the residuary profits a scientific basis for allocation may be applied

Carbon Credit receipts are not chargeable to tax as “income”. For s. 80-IA(8) if there are multiple “market values” assessee has the right to choose

(i) Carbon credit is in the nature of ‘an entitlement’ received to improve world atmosphere and environment reducing carbon, heat and gas emissions. The entitlement earned for carbon credits is a capital receipt and cannot be taxed as a revenue receipt. It is not generated or created due to carrying on business but it is accrued due to ‘world concern’. It has been made available assuming character of transferable right or entitlement only due to world concern. The source of carbon credit is world concern and environment. Due to that the assessee gets a privilege in the nature of transfer of carbon credits. Thus, the amount received for carbon credits has no element of profit or gain and it cannot be subjected to tax in any manner under any head of income. My Home Power Ltd 151 TTJ 616 (Hyd), Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills 40 taxmann.com 141 (Chennai) & Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd (Chennai) followed. Also, in Vodafone International Holdings 341 ITR 1 the Supreme Court has held that treatment of any particular item in different manner in the 1961 Act and Direct Tax Code (“DTC”) serves as an important guide in determining the taxability of said item. Since DTC specifically provides for taxability of carbon credit as business receipt and Income Tax Act does not do so, it means that carbon credits are not taxable under the Act

For s. 14A/ Rule 8D(2)(ii), interest expenditure on loans taken for taxable business purposes has to be excluded

Rule 8D(2)(ii) is very clear that the expenditure on account of payment of interest would be covered in the said Rule only if it is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt. If the assessee is able to demonstrate that the payment of interest is directly attributable to the assessee’s business, it cannot be considered under Rule 8D(2)(íi) of the I.T. Rules and has to be excluded while computing the disallowance u/s 14A

Transfer Pricing: Argument, based on BMW, that the AMP adjustment law laid down in L. G. Electronics (SB) does not apply to a full-risk distributor in not correct

The argument, based on BMW India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (Del) that as the assessee was a full fledged distributor and as such the benefit of AMP expenses did not spill over to the foreign AE is not acceptable because the Special Bench order in LG Electronics is applicable with full force on all the classes of the assessees, whether they are licensed manufacturers or distributors. The Bench in BMW did not have any occasion to bestow its attention to the correctness of the application by the TPO of the aforesaid parameters laid down in the special bench order as these were naturally not considered by the Officer since he passed his order much before the advent of the special bench order. There is no prize for guessing that Special Bench order has more force and binding effect over the Division Bench order on the same issue

S. 2(47)(v): A development agreement by which possession is transferred to developer is not a “transfer” for capital gains purposes if developer’s willingness to perform his part of the contract is not ascertainable with certainty

S. 2(47)(v) provides that the term ‘transfer‘ includes “any transaction involving the allowing of, the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act”. In order to be “of the nature referred to in s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act”, the necessary precondition is that the transferee should be willing to perform his part of the contract. The “willingness” has to be absolute and unconditional. If willingness is studded with a condition, it is no more than an offer and cannot be termed as willingness. On facts, the “willingness” of the developer to perform his part of the obligations is not ascertainable in AY 2007-08 because (a) the consideration was not paid to the assessee, (b) the building plans had not been approved, (c) there was no progress with regard to development in the AY, (d) there was no investment by the developer in the construction activity during the AY. It is not possible to say whether the developer is prepared to carry out those parts of the agreement to their logical end. The fact that the assessee has given possession is not relevant. Consequently, s. 2(47)(v) does not apply and the capital gains is not assessable to tax (Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia 260 ITR 491 (Bom) explained/ distinguished)

No s. 40(a)(i) TDS disallowance for amounts made taxable due to retrospective amendment. Also, concept of “business connection” u/s 9(1)(i) & “fees for technical services” u/s 9(1)(vii) explained

As regards “fees for technical services”, the payments made to the subsidiaries may be construed as “fees for technical services”. However this is only due to the retrospective amendment by Finance Act 2010. Prior to that, Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries 288 ITR 408 (SC) had held that s. 9(1)(vii) could be invoked only where the services were rendered in India and utilized in India. At the time of the payment Ishikawajima-Harima was the law of the land and the assessee was of the bona fide belief that TDS was not necessary on the said payments of fees for technical services. S. 40(a)(i) cannot apply to disallow payments which become taxable subsequently due to a retrospective legislation. Further, some of the payments do not satisfy the “make available” test in the DTAA as held in De Beers India Minerals