Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (4) TMI 42 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of M/s. Ashapura Clay Tech Ltd. from the list of comparables for Transfer Pricing Analysis.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exclusion of M/s. Ashapura Clay Tech Ltd. from the list of comparables for Transfer Pricing Analysis:

The solitary issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that the learned DRP has erred in excluding M/s. Ashapura Clay Tech Ltd. from the list of comparables for the purposes of Transfer Pricing Analysis, in order to determine the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions of the assessee with its AE which resulted in the deletion of transfer pricing Adjustment of Rs. 2,55,49,852 worked out by the TPO.

The assessee company, a subsidiary of Premier bleaching Earth Sdn Bhd. Malaysia, engaged in trading of Betonite/Fullers Earth Lumps, entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), after reviewing the TP Study report, selected four comparables including M/s. Ashapura Claytech Ltd. The inclusion of M/s. Ashapura Claytech Ltd. was objected by the assessee on the grounds of functional differences and abnormal/super profits.

The TPO did not find merit in the objections raised by the assessee and included M/s. Ashapura Claytech Ltd. as comparable, stating that Bentonite was a natural product requiring only processing, and the activities of both companies were similar. The TPO also overruled the objection regarding abnormal profits, relying on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Exxon Mobil Com. India Pvt. Ltd.

When the addition on account of TP adjustment was proposed, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), reiterating that M/s. Ashapura Claytech Ltd. was engaged in manufacturing activities, unlike the assessee which was involved in trading. The DRP found merit in the assessee's submissions and directed the exclusion of M/s. Ashapura Claytech Ltd. from the list of comparables, citing financial, product, and economic comparability issues.

Aggrieved by the DRP's direction, the Department appealed to the Tribunal. The Departmental Representative argued that abnormal profit should not be the basis for exclusion and that the product and activities of both companies were similar. The assessee's counsel countered by highlighting the functional differences, stating that the assessee was engaged in trading, whereas M/s. Ashapura Claytech Ltd. was involved in manufacturing with substantial plant and machinery.

The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions, agreed with the DRP that M/s. Ashapura Claytech Ltd. was not functionally comparable with the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in minor processing and trading of Grey Bentonite Clay/Fullers Earth Lump, whereas M/s. Ashapura Claytech Ltd. was involved in manufacturing Bentonite/Biogreen Granules, a commercially different product. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the exclusion of M/s. Ashapura Claytech Ltd. from the list of comparables.

Order pronounced in the court on 11th March, 2015

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates