S. 147: Fact that TPO has examined international transactions in payer's hands and found them to be at arm's length does not mean the PE of payee cannot be assessed
(iii) The contention that as the Indian subsidiary had, in terms of s. 92E, disclosed all the transactions with the assessee relating to purchase of raw materials, finished goods etc and the TPO had found then to be at arm's length, the AO was precluded from drawing any inference that any further income of the assessee from the same transactions was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment is erroneous and cannot be accepted. The TPO's order will not come in the way for the reason that the TPO's order is in relation to the transactions between a subsidiary company and the petitioner. The situation becomes different when the subsidiary company also works as a permanent establishment of the petitioner. Once a permanent establishment is established, the petitioner becomes liable to be taxed in India on so much of its business profits as is attributable to the permanent establishment in India. The order of the TPO is in relation with the subsidiary company and not in relation with the permanent establishment of the petitionerS. 14A & Rule 8D: Investments in subsidiaries to be excluded while computing disallowance
The investments made by the assessee in the subsidiary company are not on account of investment for earning capital gains or dividend income. Such investments have been made by the assessee to promote subsidiary company into the hotel industry. A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) shows that out of total investment of Rs. 64.18 crore, Rs. 63.31 crore is invested in wholly owned subsidiary. This fact supports the case of the assessee that the assessee is not into the business of investment and the investments made by the assessee are on account of business expediency. Any dividend earned by the assessee from investment in subsidiary company is purely incidental. Therefore, the investment made by the assessee in its subsidiary are not to be reckoned for disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. The AO is directed to re-compute the average value of investment under the provisions of Rule 8D after deleting investments made by the assessee in subsidiary companyTransfer Pricing: Share application money, though not allotted into shares for a long time, cannot be treated as a "loan" for taxing notional interest
The TPO has not disputed that the transactions were in the nature of payments for share application money, and thus, of capital contributions. The TPO has not made any adjustment with regard to the ALP of the capital contribution. He has, however, treated these transactions partly as of an interest free loan, for the period between the dates of payment till the date on which shares were actually allotted, and partly as capital contribution, i.e. after the subscribed shares were allotted by the subsidiaries in which capital contributions were made. No doubt, if these transactions are treated as in the nature of lending or borrowing, the transactions can be subjected to ALP adjustments, and the ALP so computed can be the basis of computing taxable business profits of the assessee, but the core issue before us is whether such a deeming fiction is envisaged under the scheme of the transfer pricing legislation or on the facts of this case. We do not find so. We do not find any provision in law enabling such deeming fictionS. 153A: No addition can be made in respect of an unabated assessment which has become final if no incriminating material is found during the search
(iii) Once it is held that the assessment finalized on 29.12.2000 has attained finality, then the deduction allowed u/s 80HHC would attain finality. In such a case, the AO, while passing the independent assessment order u/s 153A could not have disturbed the assessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings u/s 153A establish that the reliefs granted under the finalized assessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of s. 153 A proceedings. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that any material was unearthed during the search or during the s. 153A proceedings which would show that the relief u/s 80HHC was erroneous. In such a case, the AO, while passing the assessment order u/s 153A could not have disturbed the assessment order finalised on 29.12.2000 relating to s. 80HHC deduction and consequently the CIT could not have invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 Read more of this post
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment