Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

These are the set of five appeals arose against the separate assessment orders passed by Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Kadapa - 1 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel - "DRP", Bangalore-1's for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds :

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4(D)

4. Ground Nos.2 to 4(d) for the A.Y 2011-12 provides as under:

The ld.AR for the assessee has drawn our attention to the order passed by the TPO where the profile of the assessee was mentioned as under :

"Zuari Cements Ltd., is engaged in the business of production and sale of Portland cement which is used in commercial, industrial and residential construction activities. The company manufactures Blended Cement, Portland Cement and PRIMO concrete cements. The company was a JV between Zuari Industries Ltd. and ClimentFrancais SA and existed as JV until 31st May 2006. Pursuant to CF's acquisition of 50% stake held by ZIL, the company became a wholly owned subsidiary of CF, effective 31st May, 2006. The ultimate holding company is Itlacemntis p.a. During the year ended 31sst December 2007, pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, Sri Vishnu Cement Ltd., was merged with ZCL with effect from 1st January, 2007.

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa

14. Leave alone that amount, even the sub license fee for the use of trade mark is also faulty. Under the guise of TPO provisions, the TPO cannot determine the ALP at NIL as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. EKL Applicances Ltd., (supra). Therefore, rejecting the entire payment without there being any analysis on the CUP method cannot be accepted. In the guise of analyzing the transactions in the CUP method, the TPO has not brought any evidence on record to reject the 1% payment made to Italcementi Group. Moreover, while determining the price at NIL on the issue, the TPO surprisingly holds that assessee has transferred its 'Zuari Brand' to 'Italcementi Group'. We are unable to understand this logic. Italcementi Group never obtained, acquired or used Zuari Brand anywhere in the world, so that this cannot be considered for Transfer Pricing analysis. It is the Italcementi Group brand which is used by assessee- company. The TPO's analysis of AMP expenses are also not correct. Even though Italcementi Group was being used from earlier years, AMP expenses of current year also included in this, which is not correct. Moreover, Italcementi Group itself is a 50% shareholder in the assessee- company from the beginning. Therefore, it cannot be stated that 'Zuari Cements' is exclusive brand owner of the Birla Group in exclusion of Italcementi Group. The entire approach by the TPO is biased and cannot be justified on the facts of the case. Therefore, we are not in a position to uphold any of the contentions raised by TPO in his order. Likewise, the disallowance of various service fees including reimbursements made by assessee to AE. Since we do not find any valid reason for TPO to disallow these expenditures, we have no other go than to set aside the entire order of the TPO which is based on wrong presumptions and propositions. DRP unfortunately, even though consisted of three senior officers, did not apply its mind to the valid objections raised by assessee. In view of this, without deciding the merits of various issues, we set aside the orders and direct the TPO to re-consider the entire order and analyse them in fresh, first by determining the most appropriate method and then analyzing the transactions under the provisions of the TP. The orders of the TPO/DRP on the TP issues are therefore set aside and the entire issue on TP analysis is restored to the file of AO for fresh consideration. The grounds raised are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes."

15. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. The DRP for the A.Y. 2009- 10 vide his direction dt.22.09.2017 has observed in pages 5 to 7 as under :

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa

16. The closure scrutiny of the direction given by the DRP for A.Y. 2009-10 clearly shows that the case of the assessee was similar for all the A.Ys. i.e., 2009-10 to 2013-14, therefore, as there are no change in facts, it would be in the interests of justice and with a view to maintain the consistency, the Tribunal is duty bound to apply TNMM as most appropriate method by respectfully following the decision of this co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2009-10.