2015 (9) TMI 65 - AT - Income Tax

Transfer pricing adjustment - Selection of comparable Capital Trust Ltd. as selected by assessee denied by CIT(DR) - Held that - The assessee was in the business of repair services, computer hardware and software related services, erection, commissioning and installation services. Capital Trust Ltd. was, inter alia, imparting consultancy to foreign banks not having any branches or representative offices in India. The assessee s contention is that this consultancy segment is comparable to the services rendered by assessee. We are not inclined to accept the assessee s contention on this ground because the consultancy service rendered to foreign banks are in no way comparable with the assessee s business. We are not confirming the action of lower authorities on the basis of loss being incurred in two years by Capital Trust Ltd., but on the ground that functional profile being entirely different from that of the assessee. Further, we find considerable force in the argument of ld. CIT(DR) that since the consultancy segment is very meager as compared to the overall activities carried on by assessee, therefore, it cannot be held that merely because segmental details are provided, therefore, the financial consultancy to foreign bank assumes significance. We, accordingly, confirm the assessment order of AO on the issue in question. - Decided against assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment to the total income on account of redetermination of the arm's length price (ALP) of international transactions.
2. Non-appreciation of detailed contemporaneous Transfer Pricing documentation.
3. Rejection of comparable companies without sufficient basis.
4. Non-application of a working capital adjustment.
5. Non-allowance of a risk adjustment.
6. Denial of the benefit of the arm's length range.
7. Levying of interest under section 234B.
8. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Adjustment to the Total Income on Account of Redetermination of ALP
The assessee challenged the adjustment of Rs. 3,028,346 made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Assessing Officer (AO). The adjustment was made on the grounds of redetermining the ALP of international transactions with associated enterprises (AEs). The TPO had considered the comparables selected by the assessee but updated the margins and removed consistent loss-making companies, which led to the final set of comparables having an arithmetic mean of 11.15%.

Issue 2: Non-Appreciation of Detailed Transfer Pricing Documentation
The assessee argued that the detailed contemporaneous Transfer Pricing documentation was prepared bona fide and in compliance with the Act and Income Tax Rules, 1962. The documentation included a detailed Functional Asset and Risk (FAR) analysis and a methodical benchmarking process. However, the DRP and TPO did not appreciate this documentation, leading to the disputed adjustment.

Issue 3: Rejection of Comparable Companies Without Sufficient Basis
The main dispute centered around the exclusion of Capital Trust Ltd. as a comparable. The TPO rejected this company on the grounds of persistent losses and functional dissimilarity. The TPO noted that Capital Trust Ltd. was not incurring occasional losses but persistent ones, and its consultancy services to foreign banks were functionally different from the assessee's services. The DRP confirmed this exclusion, noting the significant differences in the nature of services provided.

Issue 4: Non-Application of a Working Capital Adjustment
The assessee contended that the DRP and TPO/AO erred by not applying a working capital adjustment to account for differences between the working capital requirements of the assessee and the comparable companies. This non-application was seen as a failure to consider the business/commercial reality of the assessee's minimal business risks compared to the full risk-bearing comparables.

Issue 5: Non-Allowance of a Risk Adjustment
The assessee argued that the DRP and TPO/AO ignored the commercial reality that the assessee undertakes minimal business risks compared to the comparable companies, which are full risk-bearing entrepreneurs. Therefore, a risk adjustment should have been allowed to the assessee.

Issue 6: Denial of the Benefit of the Arm's Length Range
The assessee claimed that the DRP and TPO/AO denied the benefit of the arm's length range as provided under the proviso to Section 92C of the Act for computing the ALP under Section 92F of the Act.

Issue 7: Levying of Interest Under Section 234B
The assessee contested the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. However, the tribunal noted that the charging of interest under this section is consequential and disposed of this ground accordingly.

Issue 8: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c)
The tribunal found the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) to be premature and dismissed this ground accordingly.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the assessment order of the AO on the issues in question. The tribunal upheld the exclusion of Capital Trust Ltd. as a comparable due to functional dissimilarity and the insignificant consultancy segment compared to the overall activities of the assessee. The tribunal also noted that merely incurring losses in a particular year does not justify exclusion but emphasized the importance of functional comparability. The appeal was dismissed, and the assessment order was confirmed.

← Previous Next →