9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 354 - AT - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustment - CIT(A) reducing the cost of goods received free of cost of ₹ 9.1O crore, from the total cost of goods of ₹ 14.76 crore and applying 6% mark up on such reduced amount of ₹ 5.66 crore, thereby allowing the assessee relief of ₹ 54,60,000/- - Held that - Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in determining the arm s length price. The impugned transaction is in accordance with the view point taken in respect of A.Y 2007-08 as it is in accordance with the principle of consistency, which is applicable to the Income-tax cases as per decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 2010 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein their Lordships have held that there ought to be uniformity in treatment and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical, particularly in the case of the assessee. In this case also, what Ld. CIT(A) has done is that he has brought uniformity in the treatment and consistency to bring the TP adjustment at par with the treatment adopted by the Department in respect of assessment year 2007-08. - Decided against revenue.
Issues involved:
1. TP adjustment calculation based on cost of goods received free of cost. 2. Application of TNMM method for benchmarking. 3. Consistency in TP adjustment calculation across assessment years. Analysis: Issue 1: TP adjustment calculation based on cost of goods received free of cost The appeal by the Revenue challenged the reduction of the cost of goods received free of cost from the total cost of goods, leading to a 6% mark-up on the reduced amount. The contention was that excluding the cost of raw material would distort results and the Berry ratio was not suitable for manufacturers. The Tribunal noted the TPO's calculation of TP adjustment at Rs. 2,33,24,680 based on a 6% mark-up on the total cost incurred. However, the CIT(A) recalculated the adjustment to Rs. 1,78,64,680 by excluding the value of raw material, aligning with the approach taken in the preceding year. The Revenue argued against this relief, stating the raw material value should not be excluded for mark-up calculation. Issue 2: Application of TNMM method for benchmarking The assessee company engaged in manufacturing had international transactions, and the TNMM method was adopted for benchmarking. The TPO applied a 6% mark-up on the cost incurred, including raw material supplied free of cost. The CIT(A) considered the approach taken in the previous year where the raw material value was excluded for mark-up calculation, leading to a reduced TP adjustment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing consistency in treatment and adherence to the principle of uniformity in TP adjustments. Issue 3: Consistency in TP adjustment calculation across assessment years The Tribunal highlighted the importance of consistency in TP adjustment calculations across assessment years. It referenced a previous year's TP adjustment calculation where the cost of goods received free of cost was excluded for mark-up computation, resulting in a 6% margin on the remaining cost. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the relief granted by the CIT(A), emphasizing the need for uniform treatment when facts and circumstances remain the same, as per the decision in CIT vs. Gopal Purohit. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the TP adjustment based on the consistent treatment of excluding the cost of goods received free of cost for mark-up calculation, in line with the approach taken in the preceding year. The judgment highlighted the significance of maintaining uniformity and consistency in TP adjustments across assessment years.
|
