2021 (10) TMI 669 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - TPO considered royalty payment as a separate international transaction and proceeded to test the royalty transaction separately by applying comparable uncontrolled transaction - HELD THAT - Rejection of the two comparables by the TPO, are based on conjectures and surmises. It is pertinent to note that the filters used by the TPO does not indicate that the high rates in respect of determination of ALP of royalty is one of the criteria of the rejection while confronting the assessee. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in case of ChrysCapital Investment 2015 (4) TMI 949 - DELHI HIGH COURT is applicable in the present case. Hence there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Royalty Transaction

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary issue revolved around the Transfer Pricing Officer's recommendation to delete the adjustment for royalty transaction due to alleged excessive payment not at arm's length. The Revenue contended that the new agreement resulted in a considerably higher royalty outgo, contrary to OECD guidelines advocating arm's length pricing for intangible property. The Appellant, a company engaged in direct selling of consumer products, had its case referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer, who recommended an adjustment of ?23,21,04,662. The Assessing Officer made total additions based on this recommendation, leading to a dispute regarding the arm's length price determination for royalty and managerial remuneration.

The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, prompting the Revenue to challenge the decision. During the proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer's methodology for calculating net sales and treating royalty payment as a separate international transaction was scrutinized. The Appellant relied on the CIT(A)'s decision and a previous High Court judgment to support their case. The CIT(A) emphasized that the Transfer Pricing Officer's rejection of comparables lacked substantive reasoning and was based on conjectures. The CIT(A) highlighted the importance of considering various factors like business model, terms of agreement, and geographical area when assessing comparability, as mere high royalty rates should not be the sole criterion for rejection.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the Transfer Pricing Officer's rejection of comparables lacked a solid foundation and did not consider essential factors for comparability assessment. The Tribunal cited a High Court judgment to support the principle that comparables should not be rejected solely based on high or low margins compared to peers. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the addition made on account of the transfer pricing adjustment related to the royalty transaction.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the transfer pricing adjustment for the royalty transaction, highlighting the importance of a comprehensive comparability analysis and rejecting arbitrary rejections of comparables based on high rates alone. The decision underscored the need for a thorough evaluation of relevant factors to determine arm's length pricing, ensuring a fair and justified assessment in line with legal principles and guidelines.