9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 451 - AT - Income TaxTP adjustment made on account of payment of management charges - Proof of availment of services - determination of arm's length price by the TPO at Nil - HELD THAT - Assessee was availing specialized services which were provided by the AEs from common pool and the evidences in this regard have been filed by the assessee and where the services were charged on cost to cost basis, there is no merit in the order of the AO in questioning the availment of services and the benefit derived by the assessee. AO in the alternate held that there was duplication of services. CIT(A) in the final analysis held it to be shareholder activity. All the above said observations of the authorities below, establish the availment of services. We have also perused the data of evidences filed by the assessee to establish its case of availment of services; under law the benefit, if any, arises to the assessee or not cannot be questioned. Hence, the payment made by the assessee being cost to cost reimbursement of the services availed from common pool is duly allowable as a business expenditure in the hands of the assessee. TPO has exceeded his jurisdiction in holding the value of the said international transaction at NIL. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. 2012 (4) TMI 346 - DELHI HIGH COURT had held that benchmarking of cost to cost reimbursement of expenses was not within the jurisdiction of the TPO while computing the arm s length price of the international transaction u/s 92CA of the Act. In such facts, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to allow the claim of the assessee in entirety. The Ground of appeal Nos. 1 2 are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction. 2. Methodology for benchmarking Management Services. 3. Appropriateness of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. 4. Disallowance of business expenses by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). 5. Tax evasion motive. 6. Classification of Management Services as Shareholder Services. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction: The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 144C(4)/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal upheld the AO's jurisdiction, finding no procedural or legal errors in the AO's actions. 2. Methodology for benchmarking Management Services: The assessee used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking intra-group services (IGS). The TPO disagreed, arguing that the assessee failed to provide service-wise details and contemporaneous documentary evidence to substantiate the services received. The tribunal noted that the assessee provided extensive documentation, including cost allocation agreements and evidence of services rendered, supporting the use of TNMM. 3. Appropriateness of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method: The TPO applied the CUP method, determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the transaction at NIL due to a lack of evidence and perceived duplication of services. The tribunal found that the TPO's approach was inappropriate, as it did not identify comparable uncontrolled transactions. The tribunal held that the TNMM method was suitable given the nature of the services and the evidence provided. 4. Disallowance of business expenses by the TPO: The TPO disallowed the entire expense of ?1,94,75,937/- for management services, questioning the necessity and benefit of the services. The tribunal emphasized that the TPO's role is limited to verifying the arm's length nature of the transaction, not questioning the commercial decisions of the assessee. The tribunal found that the services were indeed rendered and beneficial to the assessee, thus allowing the expenses. 5. Tax evasion motive: The TPO suggested that the payments were a device for profit shifting, as the tax rate in Denmark was higher. The tribunal dismissed this argument, noting that the assessee had deducted TDS and paid service tax, and there was no evidence of tax evasion motive. 6. Classification of Management Services as Shareholder Services: The TPO and CIT(A) classified the management services as shareholder services, implying no benefit to the assessee. The tribunal rejected this classification, finding that the services were specialized, necessary for the assessee's business, and not duplicative. The tribunal referenced the CIT(A)'s findings for the subsequent year, which supported the assessee's claim. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the TPO exceeded his jurisdiction by determining the ALP at NIL and disallowing the expenses. The tribunal directed the AO/TPO to allow the claim of the assessee in entirety, validating the use of TNMM for benchmarking and recognizing the legitimacy of the expenses incurred for management services. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
|
