2015 (2) TMI 242 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of the mistake - alternate direction given by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer to consider the rate adopted by the assessee in the immediately next year by discounting the same is contrary to Rule 10C(4) - Held that - Keeping in view the clear and unambiguous provisions of Rule 10B(4) as further interpreted by the Tribunal in various decisions, we find merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that there is a mistake of law in the order of the Tribunal in giving alternate direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the rate adopted by the assessee in the immediately next year for comparability analysis and the same being apparent from record, we rectify the same by deleting such alternate direction given by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2011 is modified and the miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the order of the Tribunal regarding Transfer Pricing adjustment and the use of data from subsequent years for comparability analysis.

Rectification of Mistake in Tribunal's Order:
The judgment involves a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a mistake alleged in the order of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2011 related to Transfer Pricing (T.P.) adjustment. The Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to consider the rate adopted by the assessee in the immediately next year for comparability analysis. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee argued that this direction was contrary to Rule 10B(4) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, which prohibits the use of data from subsequent years for comparability analysis. The Counsel relied on various decisions by Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal supporting this interpretation. The Tribunal, after considering the clear and unambiguous provisions of Rule 10B(4) and the consistent view taken in previous decisions, concluded that there was a mistake of law in the order. Consequently, the Tribunal rectified the mistake by deleting the alternate direction given to the Assessing Officer in the original order. The miscellaneous application of the assessee seeking rectification was allowed, modifying the Tribunal's order.

Use of Data from Subsequent Years for Comparability Analysis:
The issue of using data from subsequent years for comparability analysis in Transfer Pricing was a significant aspect of the judgment. Rule 10B(4) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, specifies that data relating to the financial year in which the international transaction occurred should be used for comparability analysis. The Rule allows considering data from a period not exceeding two years prior to the financial year if it reveals facts influencing transfer prices. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee argued that the Tribunal's direction to consider the rate adopted by the assessee in the immediate next year for comparability analysis was in violation of Rule 10B(4). The Counsel's contention was supported by the Tribunal's consistent interpretation of the rule in previous decisions. The Tribunal, acknowledging the prohibition on using data from subsequent years for comparability analysis, rectified the mistake in its original order by deleting the direction that contravened Rule 10B(4). This aspect of the judgment emphasized adherence to statutory provisions and established interpretations in Transfer Pricing matters.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad addressed the rectification of a mistake in the original order related to Transfer Pricing adjustment and the prohibition on using data from subsequent years for comparability analysis as per Rule 10B(4) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The Tribunal's decision to rectify the mistake by deleting the direction conflicting with the statutory rule showcased the importance of adhering to legal provisions and established interpretations in tax matters, particularly concerning Transfer Pricing adjustments.