2017 (12) TMI 800 - AT - Income Tax

TPA - selection of comparable criteria - Held that - Companies functionally dissimilar with that of Market Support Service segment of assessee need to be deselected from final list of comparable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition to taxable income on account of determination of arm's length price of international transaction.
2. Disregarding economic analysis and selection of comparables by Transfer Pricing Officer.
3. Inclusion of Media Research Users Council as a comparable company.
4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act.
5. Charging interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.

Issue 1:
The taxpayer challenged the addition of INR 15,503,946 to its taxable income due to the determination of arm's length price of international transactions under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined the comparables selected by the taxpayer and the Transfer Pricing Officer's adjustments. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the adjustment reducing the TP adjustment to INR 1,55,03,946.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal analyzed the selection of comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer, who rejected the taxpayer's choices and introduced new comparables, resulting in a significant adjustment to the arm's length price. The Tribunal considered the arguments regarding functional comparability and economic analysis. The Tribunal upheld the adjustments made, reducing the TP adjustment based on the exclusion of one comparable.

Issue 3:
The inclusion of Media Research Users Council as a comparable company was contested by the taxpayer on grounds of functional dissimilarity, being a not-for-profit organization, and not meeting the turnover filter criteria. The Tribunal reviewed the functional profile and revenue sources of MRUC, concluding that it was not a suitable comparable for benchmarking the international transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled against the taxpayer on this issue.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal noted the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. However, as the penalty issue was premature, no specific findings were provided in the judgment.

Issue 5:
Regarding the charging of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act, the Tribunal considered it consequential in nature and did not provide specific findings on this issue. The appeal filed by the assessee was ultimately dismissed, and the order was pronounced in open court on December 12, 2017.