9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 343 - AT - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustment - addition relating to payment of royalty u/s.92CA(3) - Held that - adjustments are made by the Transfer Pricing Officer without giving any detailed reasons in his order. He has merely stated the fact of the impugned adjustment and left at that. When assessee raised the grievance before the DRP, the DRP observed that the TNMM was rejected as the TPO was able to find internal CUP but does not give any further details. It is difficult to even understand, much less examine, the reasoning adopted by the authorities below in making these adjustment This matter is required to be remitted back to the assessment stage with a direction to the TPO to adjudicate upon these issues de novo, by way of a speaking order and after giving yet another reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is at liberty to take such plea, as may be advised, and the TPO shall adjudicate upon the pleas so taken by way of a speaking order. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition relating to payment of royalty under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition under Section 92CA(3) regarding import of product 2, 4 DTBP. 3. Addition under Section 92CA(3) regarding export of product DPO. 4. Addition under Section 92CA(3) regarding export of product PTBP. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition Relating to Payment of Royalty under Section 92CA(3): The primary issue in the appeal by the Assessing Officer (AO) was the deletion of the addition relating to the payment of royalty amounting to ?3,80,99,599 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had determined the arm's length price (ALP) of the royalty at NIL, arguing that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) approval did not justify the payment as ALP. The TPO noted the lack of specific benefits from the agreement and no incremental benefit in the financial statements. The CIT(A) disagreed, noting the continuous receipt of technology and technical support, and found the royalty rate of 2% of net sales to be in line with intra-group transfer pricing policy. The CIT(A) also considered the benchmarking analysis submitted by the assessee, which showed the royalty rate lower than the arithmetic mean of comparable companies. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the TPO's method of determining ALP was not scientific and that the RBI approval could be a reasonable CUP input for determining ALP. The appeal by the AO was dismissed. 2. Addition under Section 92CA(3) Regarding Import of Product 2, 4 DTBP: The assessee's appeal included a grievance about the addition of ?16,34,685 related to the import of 2, 4 DTBP. The TPO had made the adjustment without detailed reasoning, and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) merely noted the rejection of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) in favor of an internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method without further details. The ITAT found the reasoning insufficient and remitted the matter back to the assessment stage for a detailed, speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 3. Addition under Section 92CA(3) Regarding Export of Product DPO: Similarly, the assessee challenged the addition of ?7,99,076 related to the export of DPO. The TPO's order lacked detailed reasons, and the DRP's observations were not comprehensive. The ITAT remitted this issue back to the assessment stage for a fresh adjudication by the TPO, directing a speaking order and reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case. 4. Addition under Section 92CA(3) Regarding Export of Product PTBP: The assessee also contested the addition of ?16,98,298 related to the export of PTBP. As with the previous issues, the TPO's order lacked detailed reasoning, and the DRP's observations were insufficient. The ITAT remitted this issue back to the assessment stage for a detailed, speaking order and a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the appeal by the AO regarding the royalty payment and allowed the cross-objection by the assessee. The ITAT remitted the issues related to the import of 2, 4 DTBP and the export of DPO and PTBP back to the assessment stage for fresh adjudication with detailed reasoning and proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|
