Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Bombardier Transportation India Ltd., 3 rd Floor, B-Wing, Somdutt Chambers-I, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi Vs. ACIT Circle-3(1) New Delhi
September, 08th 2014
                      DELHI BENCH "I": NEW DELHI
                  SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                              ITA No. 5375/Del/2011
                            (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

              Bombardier Transportation India         ACIT
              Ltd., 3rd Floor, B-Wing,                Circle-3(1)
              Somdutt Chambers-I,               Vs.   New Delhi
              Bhikaji Cama Place,
              New Delhi
              PAN: AAACA5584C
              (Appellant)                             (Respondent)

                       Appellant by      : S.D. Kapila, Adv,
                      Respondent by      : Peeyush Jain, CIT DR


      Brief fact of the case is that the assessee company (BTIL) is a part of
Bombardier Group and is engaged in manufacturing of transportation
solution ranging from regional aircrafts and business jets to rail transportation
equipment, system & services.. It is associated with the Indian Railways as a
component supplier for propulsion and signaling system. In the propulsion
business, BTIL manufactures traction/auxiliary converters, vacuum circuit
electronics and tabs changers in its facilities in Gujarat. In the signaling
business, the company is engaged in the supply and installation of signaling

2.    The Income declared by BTIL was at Rs.70.050 crores, Income assessed
u/s 143(3)/ 144C 78.75 crores , TP adjustment Rs. 8.58 crores

3.    The international transactions entered into, by the assessee are
tabulated below:-
                                     Page No. 2

Nature of transaction                                Method        Total value of
                                                     selected      Transactions
Import of raw material, components and               TNMM          11,037,600
finished goods
Provision of software services                       TNMM          36,465,954
Availing of administrative and intermediary          -             85,813,076
Reimbursement of expenses by Bombardier              -             932,213
Write off of balance                                 -             28,73,000

4.    TPO accepted the value of all international transactions except
administration and intermediary services received from Bombardier Group &
Bombardier Switzerland.

5.    The Transportation business of Bombardier Group is headquartered in
Germany and is further split into following key sub-divisions:-

      The Locomotive Division (LOC)
      Mainline & Metros (MLN)
      Propulsion (PPC)
      Bogies (BOG)
      Light Rail Vehicles (LRV)
      London Underground Project(LUP)
      Rail Control Systems (RCS)
      Bombardier Transportation North America (BTNA)
      Services (SER)
      Total Transit System Division(TTS)

      Swiss HUB:-

      The worldwide management activities for each of above- mentioned
      sub-divisions    are   centralized   in     departments   known   as   HUBs.
      Bombardier Switzerland is the HUB entity Propulsion (PPC) and houses
      heads for various functional areas like procurement, engineering
      operations, quality, marketing and finance, each catering to the
      worldwide PPC business. These functional heads monitor and supervise
      operations of local PPC site like Bombardier India at division level and
                                   Page No. 3

      provide them regular assistance. An agreement has been executed for
      such services between Bombardier Switzerland and Bombardier India
      and named as services agreement. (at pg. 284IVol.-I)

      Bombardier Canada:-

      Bombardier Canada, being the Headquarter entity for the Bombardier
      group is responsible for management and coordination between
      Aerospace and Transportation business and respective Sub-divisions
      (HUBs) in respect of all strategic and operational issues and provides
      the global policies. procedures, administrative support services etc. For
      availing these centralized administrative and intermediary services, a
      service agreement was executed between Bombardier Canada and
      Bombardier India along with other group entities. (at pg. 427 IV 01.-11)

6.    At the outset the ld AR raises violation of natural justice by the
authorities below and took our attention to Grounds no. 5 to 7 raised by it
which are as follows:-

      "5.   The ld TPO erred by not providing the Appellant an adequate
      opportunity of being heard before concluding that the appellant has
      not derived any benefits from the services availed from its associated
      enterprises, which is against the principles of natural justice.

      6.    The Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in its findings
      that no cost allocation information was provided by the Appellant and
      same is factually incorrect.

      7.    The Hon'ble DRP erred in sustaining TPO's order by ignoring the
      detailed evidence submitted to it, substantiating the nature of intra-
      group services availed by the Appellant and corresponding benefits
      derived there from."

7.    The ld AR submitted that, the assessment proceedings of the assessee
began in November 2009. However, the learned TPO only issued a show
cause notice to the assessee in September 2010 and provided the assessee
less than 4 working days to prepare a response for the same. The ld AR further
submitted that it was time consuming to comply with the detailed request of
the TPO. However, the learned TPO failed to appreciate this fact and even
though he had sufficient time to issue the show cause notice before hand, he
                                     Page No. 4

preferred to issue notice only at the last stage of assessment proceedings
and didn't provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to submit the
complete details/information as requested in the show cause notice and
went ahead and passed the order. Thereafter the assessee submitted the
additional information before the DRP as the same could not be submitted
before the TPO due to paucity of time as stated above. However according
to the ld AR, the DRP has failed to consider the evidence including the cost
benefit analysis submitted before the TPO and voluminous evidence
submitted before it. And according to the ld AR, the DRP's finding that the
appellant did not provide allocation key for allocation of costs by the AEs
was wrong and these were specifically provided to the TPO & DRP. And
according to the ld AR, neither the TPO, nor the DRP have questioned the
veracity of the fact as to whether the Swiss & Canada AE rendered services
to the assessee. However, in the impugned order they have surmised that
these services are incidental, duplicative and not necessary for the appellant
to carry on its business. So according to the ld AR, because of non-
consideration of relevant evidence by DRP and due to the lack of
opportunity to produce the documents to substantiate its claim before the
TPO, has resulted in failure by the said authorities to consider the significance
of the services rendered by the AE ; and also they made no attempt to
appraise their market value or benefit derived by the appellant.

8.    And therefore the ld AR, prays that the issues may be remanded back
to the file of the TPO/ DRP for fresh adjudication for violation of natural justice.

9.    The ld DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

10.   We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that
though the assessment proceedings in the instant case began in November,
2009, TPO issued show-cause notice to the assessee only in September 2010
directing it to submit details and supporting documents, which are admittedly
voluminous and requires reasonable time for collecting and producing the
same. However we find that the TPO issued the said show cause notice on
20th September 2010, directing the assessee to submit the entire documents
asked by him before 27th September 2010, by which the assessee only got 4
                                       Page No. 5

working days to comply the same. Since it was practically impossible to
submit the entire documents, the assessee submitted whatever it could
before the TPO who passed orders without considering the documents which
ought to have been looked into by him provided sufficient time was granted
to the assessee. Thereafter we find that the assessee filed all the said relevant
documents asked by the TPO before the DRP. The data and documents
submitted before the TPO and DRP is tabulated below:-

11.   The table below show date and details of the documents filed before

S.    Sequence                                        Date         Ref.
1.    TPO issued notice u/s 92CA (2) and 92D (3)      7.10.2009

2.    Assessee files documents under rule I OD        5.11.2009    Pg1-268/Vol-I
      along with other documents with the TPO.
3.    Assessee appears and tiles submissions on       3.3.2010     Pg 269-270/Vol-I
      queries on segmental accounts of BTIL &
      allocation of expenses
4.    Add relating information in response to         20.04.2010   Pg 271-275/Vol-I
      factual queries by TPO about AEs &
      allocation keys.
5.    TPO first time requires documentary             22.09.2010   Pg.50/Appeal Memo
      evidence to justify payment for everyone of                  (Pg. 38/ objections)
      the services rendered by the AEs. The
      evidence to be furnished within 4 days
      excluding 25th & 26th September, being
      Saturday & Sunday (objection 4 & 5)
6.    The assessee furnished explanation with
      sample evidence. TPO closes proceedings
                                                      27.09.2010   Pg. 276-297/ Vol-I
      with further opportunity (particulars of
      samples at Annexure-I
7.    Cost Allocation keys:-
      1) Vide letter dt. 27.9.2010 furnished to TPO                Pg.276-278/ Vol-I
      2) Nature and allocation of cost of service                  Pg.42/AM
      and allocation keys explained to DRP                         Pg. 20/ Objections
      (Ground no. 6)                                               Pg.46/AM
      a) (Swiss Hub)                                               Pg.24/ Objections
      b) Canada H.O,                                               Pg.898/Vol.-III
      3) Allocation Keys again provided to DRP
8.    Cost allocation of services provided to                      Pg. 452-457/Vil-III
      Group entities world-wide
                                        Page No. 6

9.                                                      27.01.2010   Pgs.383/Vol-II
                                                                     Pg.30/appeal Memo
      The assessee files objections with the DRP,                    (Pg 19/objections)
      inter alia, furnishing:
      a)      Written submission DRP                                 Pg.41/Appeal Memo
      b) Explanation justifying the TP analysis of                   (Pg.19/Objections)
      the                                                            Pgs.385-424/Vol-II)
      assessee and objecting to TPO rejecting it
      without basis. (objection no. 3)                               Pg.48/Appeal Memo
      c) Analysis of significance of the impugned                    (Pg. 26/objections)
      services and their benefit to the Appellant's
      business (objection no. 2)                                     Pg. 438-877/Vol-II
      d) Cost Benefit analysis along with additional                 (particulars of each
      evidence establishing actual rendering of                      documents as per
      services, by the AEs essential to the appellant                index at Annexure-2
      for running its business efficiently.  '                       Pg. 897-900/Vol-II
      i) service rendered by Canada HO, benefit                      Pgs. 880-1028/Vol-II
      derived, allocation keys applied and actual                    (Index giving
      cost allocation world-wide to all AEs.                         particulars of each
                                                                     documents at

12.   However, we on a perusal of the impugned orders find that the DRP
has not considered the aforesaid evidences including the cost benefit
analysis, the details of the service rendered by Canada HO, benefits derived,
allocation keys and actual cost-allocation work wide to AE's (Pg. 438-877
Volume-II and Page 897-900/ Vol-II and other documents relevant to
adjudicate the issues before it.

13.   In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find force in the
submission of the ld AR, that sufficient opportunity was not given to the
assessee to furnish the requisite details and documents to answer the queries
raised by the TPO. At any rate 4 working days is insufficient to produce the
voluminous documents necessary for answering the queries raised by the TPO
along with supporting documents. Thus we find that the TPO's order was
vitiated for violation of natural justice and we also find that the DRP has also
not gone into the evidence filed before it by the assessee. Therefore we set-
aside the impugned orders of the authorities below and remand the matter
for fresh adjudication, with a direction to the AO/TPO to pass order afresh
                                      Page No. 7

after taking into consideration the evidence furnished by the assessee and
after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

14.      The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

         Order pronounced in the open court on 05.09.2014.

               -Sd/-                                              -Sd/-
         (R.S. SYAL)                                       (A. T. VARKEY)
       ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                     JUDICIAL MEMBER
A K Keot

Copy forwarded to
      1. Applicant
      2. Respondent
      3. CIT
      4. CIT (A)
      5. DR:ITAT
                                                            ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                                                ITAT, New Delhi
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2023 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting