2020 (12) TMI 778 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - adjustment made to international transaction of Engineering Design and related Services - Comparable selection - HELD THAT - Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list. Transfer pricing adjustment for interest on receivables - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the Learned DRP has noted the decisions of the Tribunal and High Court in the earlier years. In assessment year 2010-11 the Tribunal in the case of Kusum Healthcare Private Limited 2015 (4) TMI 180 - ITAT DELHI and held that impact of credit period was duly factored in working capital adjustment allowed while determining the arm s-length price and, therefore, no separate adjustment for interest on receivables was warranted in the hands of the tested party.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition to returned income by re-computing the arm's length price of international transactions.
2. Non-compliance with the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) binding directions.
3. Rejection of segmental accounts furnished by the appellant.
4. Selection of current year data for comparability.
5. Addition to returned income by imputing interest on receivables.
6. Charging interest under section 234B.
7. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition to Returned Income by Re-computing the Arm's Length Price:
The appellant contested the addition of INR 27,32,88,151 to the returned income by re-computing the arm's length price of the international transaction pertaining to engineering design and related services. The Tribunal noted that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) applied various filters for selecting comparables and included certain companies that were functionally dissimilar, government-owned, or previously excluded by higher authorities. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Certification Engineering International Ltd (CEIL), HSCC India Ltd (HSCC), and Mitcon Consultancy & Engineering Services Ltd (Mitcon) from the list of comparables due to functional dissimilarity and government ownership, following precedents from previous years.

2. Non-compliance with DRP's Binding Directions:
The appellant argued that the TPO did not follow the DRP's binding directions, particularly regarding the inclusion of comparables and the computation of margins. The Tribunal found that the TPO included CEIL and HSCC despite DRP's directions to exclude them, leading to an incorrect computation of margins. The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude these companies and recompute the arm's length price.

3. Rejection of Segmental Accounts Furnished by the Appellant:
The appellant contended that the TPO rejected the segmental accounts furnished in the Transfer Pricing documentation and allocated expenses based on revenue, which was inappropriate. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's segmental accounts were prepared using reasonable allocation keys like total hours spent, payroll costs, and headcount, which were accepted in previous years. However, since the exclusion of certain comparables rendered the adjustment unnecessary, the Tribunal dismissed this ground as infructuous.

4. Selection of Current Year Data for Comparability:
The appellant argued against the selection of current year data for comparability, as complete data for the financial year 2012-13 was not available at the time of preparing the Transfer Pricing documentation. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as the exclusion of certain comparables resolved the primary dispute.

5. Addition to Returned Income by Imputing Interest on Receivables:
The appellant contested the addition of INR 50,94,089 by imputing interest on receivables from Associated Enterprises. The Tribunal noted that the DRP had followed the Tribunal's decision in previous years, which held that no separate adjustment for interest on receivables was warranted when working capital adjustment was already granted. The Tribunal directed the TPO to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest receivables, following the Supreme Court's decision in the appellant's favor for earlier years.

6. Charging Interest under Section 234B:
The appellant contested the charging of interest under section 234B amounting to INR 4,06,44,495. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as the primary dispute regarding the addition to returned income was resolved.

7. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(l)(c):
The appellant contested the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c). The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as the primary dispute regarding the addition to returned income was resolved.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly for statistical purposes, directing the TPO to exclude certain comparables and recompute the arm's length price, and to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest receivables. The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding segmental accounts as infructuous and did not specifically address the issues of charging interest under section 234B and initiation of penalty proceedings.