2015 (10) TMI 385 - AT - Income Tax

Transfer pricing adjustment - re-allocation of cost between its packaging unit and ITES unit - Rectification petition on non-consideration of the revised segmental results - Held that - The directions of the DRP with regard to the claim of assessee for re-allocation of cost between its packaging unit and ITES unit, in our opinion, unambiguous. The DRP has directed the AO to verify actual segmented cost base and compute the ALP. Pursuant to such directions dated 29-11-2013, assessee had on 20-12-2013, filed a letter dated 19-12-2013, before the TPO wherein it had given the heads of expenditure which were subject to re-allocation. The change in the net result between the original segmental working and the revised segmental working of margin is clear. In our opinion, the AO should not have taken refuge under an order passed on an earlier rectification petition by the assessee in which it had pointed out the non-consideration of the revised segmental results filed by it. Even that order dated 30-08-2013, in our opinion, was very cryptic. The directions of the DRP has not been properly considered by the lower authorities If the assessee s claim for revised segmental results are found to be acceptable, there is every possibility that pricing of its international transactions would come within /- 5% of the PLI worked out by the TPO himself. Then the issue regarding exclusion and/or inclusion of comparables may not arise at all. We therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the issue back to the file of the AO/TPO for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Right of the assessee to challenge all other aspects of the assessment and conditions are kept open. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Transfer pricing adjustment based on comparables selection and revised segmental results.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in Design & Development of animation and manufacture of packaging units, filed an appeal against an order passed under section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, challenging the non-consideration of its revised segmental results by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
2. The appellant had two segments - Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) and packaging units. The TPO accepted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNM) applied by the appellant for ITES segment. However, the TPO did not consider the revised segmental results submitted by the appellant, resulting in an upward adjustment of Rs. 1,00,04,375 based on comparables selection.
3. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed the AO to verify the actual segment cost base and compute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) under TNMM. The AO, based on the DRP's directions, upheld the TPO's decision, rejecting the revised financials filed by the appellant.
4. The appellant contended that the revised segmental results were not considered by the authorities, leading to an arbitrary addition. The appellant argued that if the revised margin of 20.74% was compared with the comparables, no adjustment in ALP was required.
5. The Tribunal found the DRP's directions unambiguous and directed the AO/TPO to consider the appellant's claim for revised segmental results. The Tribunal noted the significant difference between the original and revised segmental working of margins submitted by the appellant.
6. The Tribunal criticized the cryptic nature of the earlier order rejecting the appellant's rectification petition and emphasized the importance of considering the revised segmental results. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remitted the issue back to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
7. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's ground no. 1 for statistical purposes, indicating a partial success in challenging the transfer pricing adjustment based on comparables selection and revised segmental results.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal and factual aspects of the judgment, emphasizing the importance of considering revised segmental results in transfer pricing assessments.