2011 (4) TMI 856 - AT - Income Tax

Arm s Length Price - Reference to TPO - Transfer pricing adjustment - assessee company is engaged in the business of couriers and picks up and delivers express shipments mainly as an international courier - selection of comparables - Held that - unable to agree with the first submission of the assessee because in the case of On-Dot Couriers Cargo Ltd. and Skypak Services Specialists Ltd. the turnover is less than 5% and, therefore, these two comparables are totally non comparables. Even in the case of Over Night Express Ltd. the turnover is less than 20%. It is a universal fact that there are lot of differences between the large businesses and small businesses operating in the same field. In the case of small business economies of scale are not available and, therefore, generally less profitable - merely because these two companies were considered as comparables in A.Y 2005-06 it is not necessary that this year also they should be considered particularly when we do not know the details as to why they were considered as comparables in the previous year - it is clear that the assessee has itself accepted that the bad debts recovered, email facility charges, discount receipts and handling charges would be part of the operating income As far as the other receipts are concerned, which amounts to Rs.88,82,624/- in the case of DTDC and Rs.47,24,772/- in the case of First Flight Couriers Ltd., these are large amounts, but in the absence of details it is difficult to comment on the nature of these receipts though Ld.DR has made a good point that when small items have been segregated, chances are that these receipts may be related to operational income - Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment of Rs.14.82 crores on account of "Arm's Length Price" (ALP) as determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
2. Rejection of certain comparables by the TPO based on turnover and functional differences.
3. Inclusion of miscellaneous income in the operating profits of comparables.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adjustment of Rs.14.82 crores on account of "Arm's Length Price" (ALP):
The primary dispute in the appeal was regarding the adjustment of Rs.14.82 crores on account of ALP as determined by the TPO under section 92CA(3). The assessee, engaged in courier services and part of the DHL Group, had entered into an agreement with DHL for access to its network in exchange for a network fee. The TPO determined the ALP by comparing the assessee's transactions with those of similar companies. The TPO used two comparables, DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. and First Flight Couriers Ltd., and calculated the adjustment based on the arithmetic mean of their margins. The TPO concluded that the ALP of the network fee paid to the associated enterprise (AE) should be Rs.254.70 crores, resulting in a downward adjustment of Rs.14.82 crores.

2. Rejection of certain comparables by the TPO based on turnover and functional differences:
The TPO initially considered six comparables but rejected four due to low turnover and functional differences. Specifically, On-dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd., Skypak Services Specialists Ltd., and Overnite Express Ltd. were rejected because their turnovers were significantly lower than the assessee's. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. was rejected due to its primary involvement in surface/road transport, which was functionally different from the assessee's air courier services. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's rejection, agreeing that the turnover of the rejected companies was substantially lower and not comparable. The DRP also supported the TPO's decision to use companies with reasonably high turnover for comparison.

3. Inclusion of miscellaneous income in the operating profits of comparables:
The assessee objected to the inclusion of miscellaneous income in the operating profits of the comparables. The TPO had included items such as interest income, rent receipts, and other non-operating income in the operating profits of DTDC and First Flight Couriers Ltd. The DRP directed the AO to rework the profit margins by excluding interest income from the gross total turnover and interest expenditure from the expenses side. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that only operating profits should be considered for comparison. It was noted that items like interest income, rent receipts, dividend receipts, penalty collected, rent deposits returned, foreign exchange fluctuations, and profit on sale of assets should not be part of the operational income. However, items like bad debts recovered, email facility charges, discount receipts, and handling charges were accepted as part of the operating income. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the TPO for reexamination, emphasizing the need for detailed information on other receipts to determine their nature.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the TPO to reexamine the issue of ALP adjustment in light of the observations made regarding the inclusion of only operating income and the rejection of certain comparables based on turnover and functional differences. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of accurate and detailed information for determining the nature of other receipts in the comparables' financials.

← Previous Next →