9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 635 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - comparable selection - Functionally similarity - HELD THAT - Assessee a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of FIL Capital Management (Mauritius) Ltd. (FIL, Mauritius), engaged in providing non binding investment advisory services to its overseas Associate Enterprises (A.E). The assessee also provides non-binding investment advisory services to its A.E., therefore, it is a risk mitigated entity. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee entered into international transaction of non binding investment advisory services with its A.E. and earned revenue of ₹ 26.58 crore The assessee while filing return of income for the year under consideration reported international transaction with its AE. The assessee also furnished its transfer pricing report as required under the Income tax Act. For bench marking the transaction, the assessee undertook a study by adopting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method with OP/OC as the Profit level indicator ( PLI). By considering itself as the tested party, the assessee undertook a search process in the data bases and identified following four comparables with average arithmetic mean of 8.82% on the basis of three year data. AO referred the matter to the TPO for determination of ALP of International Transaction. For benchmarking the International Transaction, the assessee adopted TNM as most appropriate method, operating profit/operating cost was considered as profit level indicator and assessee company has taken tested party. Thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee to be deselected from final list.
Issues Involved:
1. Re-computation of arm's length price (ALP) for international transactions. 2. Inclusion and exclusion of comparable companies for transfer pricing. 3. Usage of single-year data versus multiple-year data. 4. Granting of working capital adjustment and adjustment for differences in risk profiles. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Re-computation of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for International Transactions The appeal was directed against the order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee, a wholly-owned Indian subsidiary of FIL Capital Management (Mauritius) Ltd., engaged in providing non-binding investment advisory services to its overseas Associate Enterprises (A.E.), reported an international transaction of ?26.58 crore. The assessee adopted the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) with OP/OC as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for benchmarking the transaction. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the comparables selected by the assessee and included Ladderup Corporate Advisory Pvt. Ltd., resulting in an upward adjustment of ?7,63,03,456. Issue 2: Inclusion and Exclusion of Comparable Companies for Transfer Pricing The assessee argued that Ladderup Corporate Advisory Pvt. Ltd. was not functionally comparable and that the TPO wrongly excluded three comparables: ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd., IDC (India) Ltd., and Informed Technologies Ltd. The Tribunal noted that in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11, these three companies were considered good comparables. The Tribunal directed the inclusion of these three comparables and recalculated the ALP, noting that the inclusion of Ladderup was not seriously contested by the assessee. Issue 3: Usage of Single-Year Data Versus Multiple-Year Data The assessee contended that the TPO erred by relying solely on single-year data (FY 2011-12) instead of using multiple-year data available at the time of filing the return. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail but focused on the functional comparability and consistency of the selected comparables. Issue 4: Granting of Working Capital Adjustment and Adjustment for Differences in Risk Profiles The assessee also argued for the benefit of working capital adjustment and adjustments for differences in risk profiles, which were not granted by the TPO. The Tribunal’s decision to include the three comparables and recalculate the ALP implicitly addressed the need for a more accurate and fair benchmarking process, although specific adjustments for working capital and risk profiles were not explicitly detailed in the judgment. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the inclusion of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd., IDC (India) Ltd., and Informed Technologies Ltd. as comparables and ordered the recalculation of the ALP. The ground related to the exclusion of Ladderup was treated as not pressed. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the S.A. filed by the assessee became infructuous.
|
