2018 (6) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

TPA - arm s length price adjustment in respect of royalty payment - as per tribunal no necessity for benchmarking in respect of royalty transactions - Held that - It is apparent from the impugned order that there is no discussion as regards the applicability or otherwise of the decision in case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (3) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT) while deciding the question of separately bench marking royalty where royalty paid was already a part of the operating cost. Further, there is strength in the assertion of the appellant as regards non-hearing on the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal which is apparent on a bare perusal of the impugned order.- thus the matter is set aside and fit case to be remanded with a direction to decide afresh.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal challenging assessment orders.
2. Dispute over the arm's length price adjustment in respect of royalty payment.
3. Adjudication on the necessity of separate benchmarking for royalty payment.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant filed appeals seeking to set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal challenging assessment orders for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to the present appeals before the High Court.

Issue 2: The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) determined the arm's length price in respect of royalty payment made to an associated enterprise. The TPO opined that the payment of royalty at 8% on sales was not justified due to lack of value addition by the associated enterprise. The Assessing Officer incorporated the adjustment in the draft assessment order under the Income Tax Act, leading to objections by the assessee before the Disputes Resolution Panel. The Tribunal upheld the adjustment, leading to the present challenge.

Issue 3: The appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider other grounds raised in the appeal, focusing only on the royalty issue. The appellant argued that separate benchmarking for royalty payment was unnecessary as it was part of the operating cost under the entity level TNM method. The appellant cited precedents to support this argument, which the Tribunal allegedly did not address. The High Court found merit in the appellant's contention and remanded the case for fresh consideration on all grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, directing a fresh consideration of all contentions raised in the appeal. The Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive review of the issues and clarified that the observations made were for the limited purpose of disposing of the appeals. Additionally, another appeal filed was disposed of as redundant due to the decision in the main appeals.