9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1513 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - characterisation carried out by the Ld.TPO of the assessee s business - HELD THAT - As submitted that for A.Y. 2010-11, assessee was identically characterised in the TP study which has not been disturbed by the transfer pricing officer therein. Subsequently, assessee has been characterised in different ways in the subsequent assessment years which needs to be verified at the end of Ld.TPO. In the interest of justice and to remain consistent in the approach of characterisation of assessee s business module, we remand the transfer pricing issues to the Ld.AO/TPO for de novo verification. Assessee is directed to file complete details regarding FAR analysis before the authorities in order to substantiate its arguments regarding the characterisation in the TP study. TPO is directed to analyse the details so filed by assessee and to consider the international transactions in accordance with various principles laid down by this Tribunal as well as various High Courts on this issue. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard is to be granted to assessee. Interest on receivables - As the Ld. Counsel has considered for the rate on receivables to be applied at LIBOR 2%, respectfully following the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in case of Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (1) TMI 1275 - ITAT BANGALORE we direct the Ld.AO/TPO to compute the ALP of the transaction accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition to total income due to adjustment in arm's length price (ALP) for international transactions. 2. Non-acceptance of the economic analysis by the appellant. 3. Rejection of the "Other Method" for benchmarking royalty payments. 4. Rejection of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking royalty payments. 5. Rejection of external comparable uncontrolled transaction (CUT) for benchmarking royalty payments. 6. Mischaracterization of the appellant's business model. 7. Incorrect consideration of sales for royalty payments. 8. Errors in determining the arm's length margin/price using FY 2012-13 data, rejecting certain comparables, and applying inappropriate comparability criteria. 9. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition to Total Income Due to Adjustment in ALP: The appellant contested the addition of INR 1,44,13,409 to its total income due to adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in the arm's length price for international transactions. The tribunal noted that the main issue was the characterization of the appellant’s business. The appellant, a manufacturer of software products, was characterized differently by the TPO in different assessment years, leading to inconsistencies in the determination of ALP. The tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO/TPO for de novo verification, directing the appellant to provide complete details regarding the functional analysis (FAR) to substantiate its arguments. 2. Non-Acceptance of Economic Analysis: The TPO did not accept the economic analysis undertaken by the appellant and conducted a fresh analysis. The tribunal highlighted the need for consistency in characterizing the appellant’s business model and remanded the issue for fresh verification, emphasizing the importance of considering the functions performed by the appellant accurately. 3. Rejection of "Other Method" for Benchmarking Royalty Payments: The appellant argued that the TPO erred in not accepting the "Other Method" as the most appropriate method for benchmarking royalty payments. The tribunal, while remanding the issue, instructed the AO/TPO to analyze the details filed by the appellant and consider international transactions in accordance with established principles. 4. Rejection of TNMM for Benchmarking Royalty Payments: The appellant contended that the TPO erred in not accepting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking royalty payments. The tribunal directed a fresh analysis, ensuring that the appellant is given a proper opportunity to present its case. 5. Rejection of External Comparable Uncontrolled Transaction (CUT): The TPO’s rejection of the external comparable uncontrolled transaction (CUT) search conducted by the appellant for benchmarking royalty payments was contested. The tribunal remanded the issue for de novo verification, emphasizing the need for a consistent approach. 6. Mischaracterization of Business Model: The appellant's business was characterized differently by the TPO in different assessment years. The tribunal noted that the appellant was consistently characterized as a manufacturer of software products in the TP study for A.Y. 2010-11, which was not disturbed by the TPO. The tribunal remanded the issue for fresh verification to ensure consistency in the characterization of the appellant’s business model. 7. Incorrect Consideration of Sales for Royalty Payments: The appellant argued that the TPO incorrectly considered the entire non-AE sale of the appellant’s AE’s product instead of sales effected by way of royalty payments. The tribunal remanded the issue for fresh verification, directing the AO/TPO to consider the international transactions in accordance with established principles. 8. Errors in Determining Arm's Length Margin/Price: The appellant raised several issues regarding the determination of the arm's length margin/price, including the use of FY 2012-13 data, rejection of certain comparables, and application of inappropriate comparability criteria. The tribunal remanded the issues for fresh verification, directing the AO/TPO to analyze the details filed by the appellant and consider the international transactions in accordance with established principles. 9. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings: The appellant contested the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The tribunal allowed the grounds for statistical purposes, remanding the issue for fresh verification. Additional Grounds: The appellant raised additional grounds related to the main issue of disallowance. The tribunal admitted the additional grounds, noting that they were directly connected with the main issue and did not require new facts to be investigated. The tribunal directed the AO/TPO to compute the ALP of the transaction by applying the LIBOR rate + 2%, following the precedent set in the case of Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT. Conclusion: The tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, remanding the transfer pricing issues for de novo verification to ensure consistency in the characterization of the appellant’s business model and proper consideration of international transactions. The tribunal directed the AO/TPO to analyze the details filed by the appellant and consider the international transactions in accordance with established principles, ensuring a proper opportunity for the appellant to present its case.
|
