2012 (11) TMI 455 - AT - Income Tax

Transfer pricing - arm s length price - intra-group services - selection of Comparable - TPO made the addition on various grounds - Held that - The assessee s objections in this regard were, as such, rejected without passing a speaking order - remit this matter to the file of the ld. DRP, to be decided afresh in accordance with law on considering the aforesaid data provided by the assessee before the TPO.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition to total income on account of adjustment in the arm's length price (ALP) of intra-group services.
2. Rejection of the economic analysis undertaken by the assessee.
3. Rejection of the combined transaction approach for international transactions.
4. Determination of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the most appropriate method.
5. Assumption of 'no benefit' conferred from availing intra-group services.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition to Total Income on Account of Adjustment in ALP of Intra-Group Services
The primary issue raised by the assessee pertains to the addition of Rs. 34,780,481/- to its total income due to adjustments in the ALP of international transactions related to intra-group services. The assessee contended that the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) were erroneous, as the economic analysis provided by the assessee was not properly considered.

2. Rejection of the Economic Analysis Undertaken by the Assessee
The assessee argued that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and A.O. failed to accept the economic analysis conducted in accordance with the Income Tax Act and Rules. The TPO's order indicated that the assessee could not prove the benefits derived from the services provided by its Associated Enterprises (AEs), and no cost-benefit analysis was furnished. The assessee, however, maintained that the benefits of the services outweighed the costs and that the absence of a cost-benefit analysis should not lead to the conclusion that no benefit was received.

3. Rejection of the Combined Transaction Approach
The TPO/A.O. also rejected the combined transaction approach adopted by the assessee, which involved availing intra-group services and the distribution of software products. The assessee argued that these transactions were closely linked and complementary, and should have been benchmarked together using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The DRP failed to provide a clear rationale for rejecting this approach.

4. Determination of the CUP Method as the Most Appropriate Method
The TPO determined that the CUP method was the most appropriate for benchmarking the intra-group services transaction. The assessee contended that the DRP accepted this position without considering the complete data provided. The assessee submitted detailed information on the nature of the services received, including corporate marketing, management, HR, legal, and accounting/finance services. The data showed that the services were beneficial and that the costs incurred were reasonable compared to potential third-party costs.

5. Assumption of 'No Benefit' Conferred from Availing Intra-Group Services
The TPO assumed that no benefit was conferred on the assessee from the intra-group services, leading to the conclusion that the ALP should be considered 'nil'. The assessee argued that this assumption was baseless, as detailed documentation and evidence were provided to support the benefits derived from the services. The DRP did not provide a speaking order to address these objections, leading to the rejection of the assessee's claims without adequate justification.

Remand to DRP
Given the inadequacies in the DRP's consideration of the data provided by the assessee, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the DRP for a fresh decision. The DRP is instructed to re-evaluate the case, taking into account the detailed submissions and data provided by the assessee.

Dependent Grounds
The decision on grounds 1 to 3 is contingent upon the DRP's fresh decision on grounds 4 and 5. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, pending the DRP's re-evaluation.

Conclusion
The Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the DRP for a fresh decision, considering the detailed data provided by the assessee. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, pending further evaluation by the DRP.