2015 (3) TMI 9 - AT - Income Tax

Transfer pricing adjustment - segmental details taken by the assessee in its TP analysis rejected merely on the ground that they are unaudited, as done by the TPO - Held that - Find merit in the contentions of assessee that there is no point in rejecting the entire segmental details when the segmental activities are different and specific allocation keys are given for allocating the indirect expenses between different segments. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that it is incumbent upon TPO to examine the segmental details after verifying the allocation of direct and indirect expense made by the assessee with reference to the respective allocation keys and if on such examination/verification, it is found that the segmental financials are not reliable, he could reject the same by giving specific reasons. Otherwise, if the allocation of overhead is by and large fair and reasonable and the segmental results can be fairly and appropriately adjusted, by changing/adjusting the allocation, the TPO, in our opinion, should make such adjustments and do the Transfer Pricing Analysis on the basis of such adjusted segmental financials, instead of rejecting the same straight away. - remit this issue to the file of the AO/TPO to decide the same afresh - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Adjustment on account of interest attributable to the excess credit period allowed by the assessee to its Associated Enterprise - addition of ₹ 1,60,66,825 made to the total income of assessee - Held that - it is pertinent to note that credit was being offered by the assessee company even in the case of non-AE transactions and these internal comparables thus were available for the comparability analysis. As agreed by the learned representatives of both the sides, the average credit period offered by the assessee in the non-AE transactions can be taken as the credit period offered in an arm s length situation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the average credit period offered by the assessee to its AE, going by the quantum of receivables at the end of the year under consideration vis- -vis corresponding turnover, is the same as offered to the non-AEs. The learned Departmental Representative, however, has contended that this mater requires verification and the Assessing Officer may be allowed to work out the average credit period actually offered by the assessee in case of non-AE transactions and compare the same with the credit period allowed by the assessee in the case of AE transactions. Remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO with a direction to decide the same afresh - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment for international transactions involving IT/ITES services.
2. Addition on account of TP adjustment for interest attributable to the excess credit period allowed to Associated Enterprises (AEs).
3. Levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition on account of Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment for international transactions involving IT/ITES services:

The assessee, a company providing data clearing, financial settlement, and back-end support services, filed an appeal against the order of the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 16(2), Hyderabad. The dispute centered on the addition of Rs. 2,61,64,283 made by the Assessing Officer/TPO for TP adjustments concerning international transactions with AEs for IT/ITES services.

The assessee had submitted a TP Study Report using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with Operating Profit to Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Price Level Indicator (PLI). The TPO rejected this report, citing defects in the method of selecting comparables and the use of unaudited segmental results. The TPO then conducted his own analysis, selecting 18 comparables with an Arithmetic Mean of OP/OC at 22.69%.

The TPO recalculated the OP/OC for the assessee's international transactions at 15.73%, leading to a TP adjustment of Rs. 1,15,27,299. After objections from the assessee, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed the exclusion of Infosys Technologies Ltd. from the comparables, reducing the TP adjustment to Rs. 1,00,97,458.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that segmental details should not be rejected merely because they were unaudited. It emphasized the need for the TPO to examine the allocation of direct and indirect expenses and to make adjustments if the segmental financials were found reliable. The issue was remitted back to the AO/TPO for fresh examination and verification of the segmental financials.

2. Addition on account of TP adjustment for interest attributable to the excess credit period allowed to Associated Enterprises (AEs):

The AO/TPO noted that the assessee had receivables of Rs. 8,41,67,205 from its AEs and allowed an excessive credit period. The TPO, referencing the Tribunal's decision in Logix Micro Systems Ltd., considered one month as a reasonable credit period and calculated interest for the delay, resulting in a TP adjustment of Rs. 1,60,66,825.

The Tribunal observed that the TPO did not provide a basis for considering one month as a reasonable credit period. It suggested using internal comparables, i.e., the average credit period offered by the assessee to non-AEs, as a benchmark. The issue was remitted back to the AO/TPO to verify the average credit period for non-AE transactions and compare it with the AE transactions, providing the assessee an opportunity for a hearing.

3. Levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C:

The issues related to the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C were deemed consequential. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee based on the final determination of the TP adjustments.

Conclusion:

The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for the AO/TPO to re-examine and verify the segmental financials and credit periods, and to provide consequential relief regarding interest levies. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed and fair analysis of the segmental details and internal comparables in TP adjustments.