2013 (4) TMI 642 - AT - Income Tax

Invocation of the provision of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act on the basis of the Transfer Pricing (TP) Study undertaken by the assessee - assessee s service Center is registered under the Software Technology Parks of India and provides services to its Associate Enterprise (AE) Assessee choose CUP method for determination of ALP - the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of S.10A(7) read with S.80IA(10) to consider that the assessee has earned more than the ordinary profit and considering the same TP study submitted by the assessee under TNMM method, determined the excess profit and denied deduction under S.10A while completing the assessment. Held that - In view of the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal we hold that the exercise undertaken by the Assessing Officer under S.10A(7) is neither sustainable on facts nor under the provisions of law. The Coordinate Bench in the above referred case has relied on the decision in the case of Tweezerman (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 2010 4 TMI 892 - ITAT Chennai . In this case, the transfer pricing study has not resulted in any addition and ALP was accepted. Even though the authorities relied on arranged transaction between the assessee and AE, we do not see any such arrangement on the facts of the case. Nor there is any passing of profits directly or indirectly. In view of this, since the assessee s operations are efficient enough to obtain more profits and since the receipts are at arms length and there is no passing of excess profits by the parent company (AE) to the assessee, we are of the opinion that Assessing Officer s action in restricting the profits is not correct. We also do not see any reason to restore it to the Assessing Officer since there is nothing else to examine. Accordingly, we allow the grounds of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to treat the profits declared by the assessee as ordinary profits and allow deduction under S.10A, without any further adjustment.

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(10) by the Assessing Officer.
2. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions.
3. Justification of profit margins under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
4. Relevance of Transfer Pricing (TP) study and its acceptance by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
5. Alleged arrangement to earn more than ordinary profits.
6. Applicability of judicial precedents and legislative intent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(10):
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was correct in invoking the provisions of Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(10) on the basis of the Transfer Pricing Study undertaken by the assessee. The AO denied the deduction under Section 10A, determining the excess profit at Rs. 2,99,34,750 based on the TNMM method.

2. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP):
The assessee, engaged in back office processing services, had transactions with its Associate Enterprise (AE), Samsung Data Corporation USA (SDC US). The assessee justified its pricing using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and supplemented it with the TNMM method. The TPO concluded that the pricing was within the Arm's Length Standard, and no adjustment was required.

3. Justification of Profit Margins under TNMM:
The assessee's profit margin was 159.5% on the operating cost, which it justified under the TNMM method. However, the AO considered this profit margin to be more than ordinary and invoked Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(10), fixing the ordinary profit at 8.5%.

4. Relevance of Transfer Pricing (TP) Study:
The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, stating that the provisions of Section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) are meant to check the tendency of showing higher profits in tax-exempt undertakings. The CIT(A) noted that the AE bore most of the business risks and responsibilities, while the assessee's operational costs were minimal, leading to higher profits. The CIT(A) concluded that this was an arrangement to unjustly enrich the foreign director of the assessee company.

5. Alleged Arrangement to Earn More than Ordinary Profits:
The assessee contended that the AO's reliance on the TNMM study for invoking Section 10A(7) was incorrect. The assessee argued that the provisions apply only when both closely connected persons are taxable in India, which was not the case here. The assessee also cited judicial precedents emphasizing that avoidance of tax must be the main motive for the provisions to apply.

6. Applicability of Judicial Precedents and Legislative Intent:
The assessee referred to several judicial precedents, including cases like Visual Graphics Computing Services (India) (P.) Ltd. and Tweezerman (India) (P.) Ltd., where it was held that the AO must provide evidence and cogent reasons to invoke Section 80IA(10). The assessee argued that its transactions were at Arm's Length, and the high profit margin was due to operational efficiency and lower costs.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal considered the issue and the orders of the AO and CIT(A). It noted that the TPO had accepted the assessee's value of international transactions at Arm's Length. The Tribunal held that the AO should have fresh evidence to invoke Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(10). It observed that the assessee's operational efficiency and lower costs led to higher profit margins, which should not be considered as earning super profits. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's action in restricting the profits was not correct and directed the AO to treat the profits declared by the assessee as ordinary profits and allow deduction under Section 10A without further adjustment. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

← Previous Next →