TPO cannot decide whether expenses incurred by assessee were necessary or not for business: ITAT
- Blog|Income Tax|News|Transfer Pricing|
- 418 Views
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- Last Updated on 15 July, 2021
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vikas Awasthy | Judicial Member & N.K. Pradhan | Accountant Member
- A. Mohan for the Appellant.
- Percy Pardiwala and Nitesh Joshi for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
Assessee was a Non-banking Finance Company (NBFC) engaged in providing loans and investment activities in India. During the assessment, interest paid on ECB, payment of guarantee fee, and services fee, had been disallowed by TPO on the ground that assessee had not been able to establish the need for services and benefit derived from said services.
Assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the additions made in the draft assessment order on account of guarantee fee, service fee, and interest on ECB were deleted. Aggrieved from the order of CIT(A), revenue filed the instant appeal before the Mumbai Tribunal.
The Mumbai Tribunal held that the assessee had borrowed funds from Rabobank Hong Kong to finance its working capital requirements. The interest paid to Rabobank Hong Kong on ECB had been reflected in the books. The tax had been duly deducted by the assessee on the payment of interest. Similarly, in respect of guarantee fee and service fee, the assessee had been able to substantiate that the payments were made for the purpose of assessee’s business.
The TPO couldn’t sit in the judgment whether these expenses were necessary for conducting the business or whether any benefit had been derived from the expenditure so incurred. The law required that the expenditure should have been incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of business. This condition was duly satisfied in the assessee’s case. Thus, additions were rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
Cases Referred To
- A.S. Sivan Pillai v. CIT  34 ITR 328 (Mad.) (para 7.3)
- CIT v. Lever India Exports Ltd.  78 taxmann.com 88/246 Taxman 133 (Bom.) (para 14)
- CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.  24 taxmann.com 199/209 Taxman 200/345 ITR 241 (Delhi) (para 14)
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied