2013 (11) TMI 141 - AT - Income Tax

Arm s length price for transportation services provided to associated enterprise The assessing officer referred the case to Transfer Pricing Officer - Held that - Only the co-loading segment of the company is engaged in comparable activity, i.e., courier services Margins of the comparable company and the assessee were erroneously computed Based on the remand report of the transfer pricing officer the revised arms length margin was computed to -3.06 percent and the arithmetic mean operating margin of the comparables at 1.18 per cent based on the data of the comparable companies In price terms the (-) 5 per cent. figure comes to Rs. 12,31,972,759 while the ( ) 5 percent comes to Rs. 13,61,654,102 whereas the appellant s price is Rs.13,52,402,382 which falls within the permitted range of 5 percent. Deduction u/s 43B Held that - The entire amount was paid before the closure of the financial year or within the due date for filing the return of Income Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer pricing adjustment related to international transactions.
2. Disallowance of employees' contributions to provident fund and Employees' State Insurance Corporation under section 43B.

Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding transfer pricing adjustments and disallowance of certain deductions. The appellant, an Indian company engaged in international transportation services, entered into international transactions with associated enterprises. The Assessing Officer referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the arm's length price (ALP). The Transfer Pricing Officer applied the transactional net margin method and made an upward adjustment of Rs. 9,35,48,886 due to the appellant's margin not falling within the permissible range. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered the segmental profitability of comparable companies and the revised margin computation, leading to the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment based on the Transfer Pricing Officer-II's report.

Disallowance under Section 43B:
The second issue pertained to the disallowance of employees' contributions to provident fund and Employees' State Insurance Corporation under section 43B. The Revenue challenged the allowance of these amounts by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as they were paid beyond the due date but within the grace period. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that disallowance under section 43B is not required when payments are made within the allowable grace period specified by the respective Acts. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground, emphasizing that the entire amount was paid before the financial year's closure or within the due date for filing the return.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal on both issues, upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decisions regarding transfer pricing adjustments and the disallowance of deductions under section 43B. The judgment provided detailed analysis of the transfer pricing methods applied, the rationale behind the adjustments, and the legal principles governing the disallowance of deductions under section 43B.