9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1081 - AT - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustment - ALP in respect of royalty and management fees - Held that - The issue is covered, in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2010-11. There is no occasion to take a different view of the matter for this year. In any event, one can discard the TNMM and proceed to adopt CUP only when a comparable product or service is available. When no such comparable is available, as in this case, there cannot be any occasion to resort to CUP, and, as such, in such a situation, CUP cannot be accepted as MAM over the TNMM. The very approach underlying these ALP adjustments is not fallacious and legally unsustainable. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete ALP in respect of royalty and management fees.
Issues:
1. Transfer pricing issues challenged by the appellant. 2. Rejection of economic analysis of the appellant. 3. Adoption of Comparable Uncontrolled Price method. 4. Transfer pricing adjustment based on incorrect assumptions. Transfer Pricing Issues: The appellant challenged the correctness of the order by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax regarding transfer pricing issues. The appellant disputed the adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) regarding disallowance of capacity adjustment, payment of royalty, and management charges to associated enterprises (AE). The appellant argued that the economic analysis was not accepted, the most appropriate method was not followed, and the adoption of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was incorrect. Rejection of Economic Analysis: The TPO and DRP were criticized for not accepting the economic analysis of the appellant to determine the arm's length price (ALP) for international transactions. The conditions set out in section 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act were not considered, leading to disputes over the appropriate method and the identification of comparable uncontrolled transactions. Adoption of Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method: The TPO and DRP were faulted for not conducting a proper analysis to select the most appropriate method as prescribed under Rule 10C of the Rules. The adoption of the CUP method without following the prescribed manner and without identifying comparable uncontrolled transactions was deemed erroneous. Transfer Pricing Adjustment Based on Incorrect Assumptions: The TPO and DRP were accused of passing an order that ignored relevant submissions and documents provided by the appellant. The adjustments made for payment of royalty and management fees were considered incorrect, leading to a dispute over the arm's length value of the transactions. The incorrect presumptions and misinterpretation of facts resulted in adjustments to the total income of the appellant. Detailed Analysis of Specific Issue: The TPO rejected the capacity underutilization adjustment, citing a previous tribunal decision and questioning the reasons for underutilization. However, the tribunal found the TPO's reasoning flawed as the appellant was not a one hundred percent captive unit. The tribunal noted substantial underutilization of capacity due to technical failures, leading to a remittance of the issue for fresh quantification by adjusting comparables. Second Issue - ALP Adjustment: The DRP directed the Assessing Officer to make ALP adjustments for royalty and management fees based on the previous year's adjustments. However, the tribunal found in favor of the appellant, directing the deletion of ALP adjustments as no comparable product or service was available, rendering the CUP method inappropriate. Non-Transfer Pricing Issues: Other grievances related to miscellaneous expenses and reconciliation discrepancies were briefly addressed, with the tribunal upholding the DRP's decision on adhoc disallowance and rejecting the appeal on these non-transfer pricing matters. In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal, highlighting discrepancies in the transfer pricing issues and directing corrections in the ALP adjustments while rejecting the appeal on non-transfer pricing matters.
|
