2022 (2) TMI 1350 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - ALP of aggregation of transaction including Royalty paid - separate analysis of Royalty as international transaction - as argued trading and manufacturing segments are intertwined and inter-related warranting a Combined Transaction Approach in arriving at the arm's length price - assessee submitted that assessee selected TNMM as the most appropriate method and operating margin at entity level after including royalty was compared with comparable companies - HELD THAT - We note that assessee s margins have been computed including royalty payment which is higher than the margin of the comparables. It is also not disputed by the revenue that the comparables in case of the comparables, the royalty, margins are computed after including royalty and research and development expenses. The view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee s own case 2014 (10) TMI 460 - ITAT BANGALORE for A.Y. 2007-08 has been reproduced hereinabove wherein all these aspects have been considered. This Tribunal for A.Y. 2007-08 has deleted the adjustment made by the Ld.TPO in respect of royalty by separately bench marking the transactions. This has been fortified by the clarification given in a Miscellaneous Petition filed by the department which is also reproduced hereinabove. This view is also supported by various decisions of Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal as well as various High courts. Cojoint reading of these orders, we direct the Ld.AO/TPO to delete the adjustment proposed for royalty as a separate international transaction. Respectfully following the above view, we direct the Ld.AO/TPO to delete the adjustment proposed towards royalty as a separate international transaction. MAT computation u/s 115JB - provision towards warranty while computing the book profits under section 115JB - addition made as it is provision to meet contingent liability and is not an ascertained liability - AO allowed the same in normal computation - HELD THAT - As relying on case of Toyota Kirloskar Motors P Ltd. 2013 (2) TMI 108 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT we remand this issue back to Ld.AO for verifying if there is any double deduction claimed by assessee. The Ld.AO is directed to carry out necessary verification and consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard be granted to assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. General Grounds of Appeal
2. Transfer Pricing - Legal Issues
3. Aggregation of Transactions including Royalty Paid
4. Computation of ALP of Manufacturing Segment
5. Corporate Tax Grounds
6. Interest under Section 234B

Detailed Analysis:

General Grounds of Appeal:
1. General Grounds: The assessee contended that the order of the CIT(A) was prejudicial and bad in law. They argued that the AO and TPO erred in passing orders without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard and at the end of the limitation period. These grounds were not specifically argued and thus do not require detailed adjudication.

Transfer Pricing - Legal Issues:
2. Transfer Pricing Reference: The assessee argued that the AO erred in referring the determination of the arm's length price (ALP) to the TPO without proper justification. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action. However, these grounds were deemed academic and were not argued by the Ld.AR.

Aggregation of Transactions including Royalty Paid:
3. Combined Transaction Approach: The assessee adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) at the entity level, including royalty payments in operating expenditure. The TPO separated manufacturing and trading segments but later scrutinized the royalty transaction separately, determining the ALP of royalty at NIL using the CUP method. The CIT(A) disagreed with the TPO's determination of NIL ALP but remanded the matter back to the TPO for identifying suitable comparables.

4. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court's judgment in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P.) Ltd. v CIT, which supports the "bundled approach" for closely linked transactions. The Tribunal also noted its own previous decisions in the assessee's favor, emphasizing that once the net profit margin is at arm's length, individual transactions like royalty need not be separately benchmarked.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to delete the adjustment proposed for royalty as a separate international transaction, following the principle that the combined transaction approach should be upheld.

Computation of ALP of Manufacturing Segment:
6. Customs Duty Adjustment and Comparables: The assessee argued for customs duty adjustments and contested the rejection of certain comparables. However, since the TPO had already held the manufacturing and trading segments to be at arm's length, this issue was deemed academic for the year under consideration.

Corporate Tax Grounds:
7. Provision for Warranty: The assessee contended that the provision for warranty should not be added back to book profits under section 115JB, arguing that it was a real and ascertainable liability. The Tribunal referred to the Karnataka High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, which supported the allowance of warranty provisions as deductions. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for verification to ensure no double deduction was claimed.

8. Interest under Section 234B: This issue was not specifically addressed in the detailed analysis provided.

Revenue’s Appeal:
9. ALP of Royalty Payment: The revenue contested the CIT(A)'s direction to the TPO to identify suitable comparables for royalty payments. However, since the Tribunal deleted the adjustment for royalty proposed by the TPO, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:
- The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the deletion of the royalty adjustment and remanding the warranty provision issue for verification.
- The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal upheld the combined transaction approach for determining the ALP, including royalty payments.

← Previous Next →