2021 (4) TMI 64 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - whether other method applied by the taxpayer to benchmark its international transactions is the MAM as against TNMM applied by the TPO/ld.DRP? - HELD THAT - When undisputedly there is no change in the business model of the taxpayer during the year under consideration and in the succeeding assessments years i.e. 2014-15 to 2017-18, in which TPO/DRP have accepted the other method applied by the taxpayer to benchmark the international transactions qua its manufacturing operation, the rule of consistency has to be followed by the Revenue Authorities, otherwise it will lead to multiplicity of the litigation at different forums and will also lead to the uncertainty in the termination of litigation. So, when there are no distinguishing features and no change in the business model of the taxpayer, this issue is required to be remitted back to the TPO to decide afresh as to whether other method applied by the taxpayer to benchmark its international transactions qua manufacturing segment is the MAM afresh by providing an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer.Grounds determined in favour of the taxpayer for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the most appropriate method for benchmarking international transactions related to the manufacturing segment.
2. Identification of comparable companies for benchmarking purposes based on Function performed, Assets utilized, and Risk assumed (FAR profile).

Issue 1: Determination of the most appropriate method for benchmarking international transactions related to the manufacturing segment:

The appeal before the Tribunal focused on deciding whether the "other method" applied by the taxpayer to benchmark its international transactions is the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) as opposed to the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) applied by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The taxpayer rejected the Resale Price Method (RPM) and opted for an "other method" based on gross margin comparison with comparable companies. However, the TPO applied TNMM specifically for import of raw materials, resulting in an adjustment. The DRP partly accepted objections but confirmed the TNMM adjustment. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties, emphasizing the principle of consistency in assessing each year independently but also maintaining consistency when there are no material changes. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that since there was no change in the taxpayer's business model over multiple assessment years where the "other method" was accepted, the rule of consistency should be followed. Consequently, the issue was remitted back to the TPO for reconsideration, and grounds 2 & 3 were determined in favor of the taxpayer for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Identification of comparable companies for benchmarking based on FAR profile:

The taxpayer contested the identification of Blue Star Limited as a comparable company for benchmarking, arguing that differences in the Function performed, Assets utilized, and Risk assumed (FAR profile) made it an inappropriate choice. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue as the primary focus was on determining the appropriate method for benchmarking. No specific decision or direction was provided regarding the comparability of Blue Star Limited, as the judgment primarily addressed the methodological aspect of benchmarking international transactions related to the manufacturing segment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment primarily centered on the methodological approach to benchmarking international transactions related to the manufacturing segment, emphasizing the importance of consistency in assessment practices when there are no material changes in the taxpayer's business model. The decision highlighted the need for a reconsideration of the method used by the TPO, ultimately favoring the taxpayer for statistical purposes.