2024 (3) TMI 1387 - HC - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - comparable selection - ITAT not considering the TPO s findings that the comparables proposed by the assessee are not acceptable as they do not have similar FAR as that of the assessee - HELD THAT - ITAT found that the comparables selected by the assessee were valid, as they belonged to the same industry and geographical region as those considered by the TPO. The ITAT directed the inclusion of additional comparables, which were also deemed valid for benchmarking royalty payments The assessee has paid royalty for use of trademark and marketing information /marketing know-how. All the eight comparables listed in the chart in para 16.5 above are from the same geography and same industry and hence are valid comparables to that of the assessee.The inclusion of eight comparables was not questioned before us. Consequently, we find that the appeal raises no substantial question of law and we see no reason to interfere with the ITAT s impugned order. The appeal shall thus stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal, Transfer Pricing Dispute

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a 93-day delay in filing the appeal, which was granted by the court based on the reasons provided in the application. The delay was condoned, and the application was disposed of.

Transfer Pricing Dispute:
The primary issue in the appeal was related to transfer pricing, specifically regarding the comparables proposed by the assessee for benchmarking transactions involving the payment of royalty. The ITAT considered the application of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for benchmarking royalty payments and addressed the inclusion/exclusion of comparables. The ITAT found that the comparables selected by the assessee were valid, as they belonged to the same industry and geographical region as those considered by the TPO. The ITAT directed the inclusion of additional comparables, which were also deemed valid for benchmarking royalty payments. The court noted that the inclusion of eight comparables, as directed by the ITAT, was not contested. Ultimately, the court found no substantial question of law in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the ITAT's order.

In conclusion, the court granted condonation of the delay in filing the appeal and upheld the ITAT's decision regarding the transfer pricing dispute, specifically the inclusion of comparables for benchmarking royalty payments. The appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference with the ITAT's order.