2014 (4) TMI 556 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of confirmation of order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act Transfer pricing adjustment of international transaction No material or cogent reason for rejecting the economic analysis Determination of Arm s length price - Application of TNMM or CPM Held that - Once assessee has given a methodology for working of ALP on selection of a particular method supported by appropriate comparables, the working can be dislodged by TPO on the basis of cogent reasons and objective findings - except theoretical assertions and generalized observations, no objective findings have been given to come to a reasoned conclusion that assessee s adoption of CPM for manufacturing segment and RPM for trading segment was Factually and objectively not correct - the rejection of methods by TPO as adopted by assessee is bereft of any cogency and objectivity - it is a work of guessing and conjectured - the TNMM method applied by the TPO suffers from the same inherent aberrations - Assessees methods of CPM and RPM respectively worked by applying appropriate comparables is to be upheld - Thus the ALP working returned by the assessee is upheld Decided in favour of Assessee. Corporate additions Held that - Though AO may insist for a revised return the appellate authority has been vested with powers to allow the legitimate claims of the assessee even on the basis or revised computation the AO is directed to verify the revised computation claim of the assessee Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment in the arm's length price (ALP) of international transactions.
2. Application of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) over the Cost Plus Method (CPM) and Resale Price Method (RPM).
3. Non-granting of relief for Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) paid.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Adjustment in the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of International Transactions:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 126,289,712 to its total income based on the adjustment in the ALP of international transactions with associated enterprises. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) adjustments but provided partial relief by directing the TPO to correct margins of the tested party and exclude certain non-operating expenses. The tribunal observed that the TPO's rejection of the assessee's economic analysis lacked material or cogent reasons, and the Departmental Representative failed to support the TPO's stand. Thus, the tribunal found the rejection of the assessee's methods to be without cogency and objectivity, and upheld the assessee's ALP working.

2. Application of TNMM over CPM and RPM:
The TPO applied TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) over the CPM and RPM adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its international transactions. The TPO rejected CPM for the manufacturing segment, citing reasons such as interlinked functions, exclusion of indirect costs, and lack of reliable data. Similarly, RPM was rejected for the trading segment due to reasons like the need for close comparability of products and high inventory levels. The tribunal found that the TPO's reasons were theoretical and lacked objective application. The tribunal upheld the assessee's use of CPM for manufacturing and RPM for trading, noting that traditional methods (CUP, CPM, RPM) should be preferred over transactional methods (PSM, TNMM) when reliable data is available.

3. Non-granting of Relief for Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) Paid:
The assessee sought relief for FBT paid amounting to Rs. 1,822,367, which was inadvertently disallowed and included in the total income for AY 2008-09, resulting in double taxation. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the revised computation filed by the assessee, insisting on a revised return instead, and cited the Goetze India Ltd. judgment. The tribunal noted that appellate authorities have the power to accept such claims based on revised computations, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in the Goetze case. The tribunal directed the AO to verify the revised computation claim of the assessee in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, upholding the assessee's methods for ALP working and directing the AO to verify the revised computation for FBT relief. The judgment emphasized the need for objective and cogent reasons in rejecting the assessee's methods and highlighted the appellate authority's power to allow legitimate claims based on revised computations.