9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 453 - AT - Income TaxTPA - comparable selection criteria - Held that - TCG Lifesciences Ltd. and Transgene Bioteck Ltd. both are functionally dissimilar. They are having intangible assets which are owned by both the companies. There is high risk involved by both the comparables. These are functionally dissimilar because they are into Pharmaceutical Industry and not in Auto Mobile Industry. Thus, both these comparables needs to be excluded. Therefore, the TPO/A.O is directed to exclude these two comparables. The order of the ITAT in the assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2005-06. In this particular year also, the working capital adjustment was not considered by TPO, therefore, ITAT directed the TPO to do the needful by taking into account of the relevant factors which was ignored on the earlier occasions. However, it would have to be decided fresh only after the fresh comparables are chosen by the TPO which are similar to the function segment and ownership of the assets.
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of Choksi Laboratories in the list of comparables. 2. Disregarding Transfer Pricing documentation and Arm's Length Principle for contract R&D segment. 3. Upholding interest charges under section 234B of the Act. Issue 1: Inclusion of Choksi Laboratories in Comparables The Revenue appealed to include Choksi Laboratories in the comparables list, which the CIT(A) had directed to exclude. The Revenue argued that the Transfer Pricing Officer rightfully included Choksi Laboratories as a comparable. However, the CIT(A) found Choksi Laboratories functionally dissimilar and lacking separate segmental information. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting the diverse activities of Choksi Laboratories and the absence of segmental information, leading to the rejection of this comparable. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue. Issue 2: Transfer Pricing Documentation and Arm's Length Principle The Assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the Transfer Pricing documentation and the Arm's Length Principle for the contract R&D segment. The Assessee contended that the TP documentation was prepared in compliance with the Act and detailed FAR analysis. The TPO rejected the Assessee's TP study for the R&D segment, resulting in a significant TP adjustment. The Tribunal observed that the comparables TCG Lifesciences Ltd. and Transgene Bioteck Ltd. were functionally dissimilar, engaged in the Pharmaceutical Industry, and owning intangible assets, unlike the Assessee in the Automobile Industry. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of these comparables. The Tribunal partially allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing the need for a fresh assessment considering relevant factors and similar comparables. Issue 3: Upholding Interest Charges The CIT(A) upheld the charging of interest under section 234B of the Act, which the Assessee challenged. However, the judgment did not provide detailed analysis or discussion on this issue, leading to the assumption that the Tribunal did not find merit in the Assessee's challenge. As a result, this issue was not extensively deliberated upon in the judgment. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of including/excluding comparables, Transfer Pricing documentation compliance, and the Arm's Length Principle for the contract R&D segment. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of functional similarity in selecting comparables and the need for a thorough analysis based on relevant factors. The judgment provided detailed reasoning for each issue, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the legal aspects involved in the case.
|
