2016 (5) TMI 548 - AT - Income Tax

Allowance of Royalty as business expenditure - transfer pricing adjustment - Held that - In the present appeal, what we see is the TPO sitting on judgment on the business and commercial expediency of the assessee which is erroneous as per the provisions of the Act as laid down clearly by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in EKL Appliances (2012 (4) TMI 346 - DELHI HIGH COURT). Furthermore, we are of the opinion that once TNMM has been applied to the assessee company s transaction, it covers within its ambit the royalty transactions in question too and hence the Department s contention for applying the CUP method is erroneous. Hence we hold that the addition made by the TPO and upheld by the DRP is unsustainable and is liable to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:

1. Rejection of Transfer Pricing Study (TP Study) by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
2. Determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) for royalty payments.
3. Determination of ALP for management consultancy fees.
4. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses.
5. Application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method.
6. Application of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
7. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Transfer Pricing Study (TP Study) by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO):

The TPO rejected the economic analysis undertaken by the assessee, which was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules for establishing the arm’s length price of the international transactions. The TPO did not accept the combined transaction approach of benchmarking adopted by the assessee in its transfer pricing documentation and proceeded to determine the ALP of international transactions pertaining to payment of royalty and management fee on a standalone basis, rejecting TNMM as the most appropriate method.

2. Determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) for royalty payments:

The TPO proposed an addition of ?8,77,31,148 due to the difference in ALP. The DRP upheld this, stating that the royalty payment being sent through RBI’s approval at certain rates cannot be equated as payment being at arm’s length and that it cannot be used as CUP. The TPO justified determining the ALP separately rather than aggregating it with other transactions under TNMM. The assessee argued that the CUP method could not be applied as neither the AE nor the assessee had entered into similar royalty arrangements with third parties and the data for external comparable transactions between independent parties in India was not available. The Tribunal found that the TPO was sitting on judgment on the business and commercial expediency of the assessee, which is erroneous as per the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal held that once TNMM has been applied to the assessee company’s transaction, it covers within its ambit the royalty transactions in question too, and hence the Department’s contention for applying the CUP method is erroneous. The addition made by the TPO and upheld by the DRP was deemed unsustainable and liable to be deleted.

3. Determination of ALP for management consultancy fees:

The TPO made an adjustment of ?29,65,700 on account of the ALP of international transactions of payment of management fee. The DRP upheld this, noting that the assessee had made payments for services availed which contained two mark-ups. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the TPO to verify whether the Head Office had correctly allocated the hours of service/cost of service rendered and whether any other cost centers were erroneously included in the allocation. The TPO was directed to examine the issue afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

4. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses:

The TPO disallowed miscellaneous expenses amounting to ?8,55,912 on an ad-hoc and arbitrary basis. The DRP ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that since the disallowance was not supported by any evidence, it had to be deleted. The Tribunal directed the TPO to pass the consequential order in this regard.

5. Application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method:

The TPO arbitrarily selected CUP method as the most appropriate method to benchmark the international transaction pertaining to payment of management fee and royalty. The Tribunal found that the CUP method could not be applied if the relevant information is not available. The Tribunal upheld the use of TNMM for royalty and management consultancy fees, noting that the TPO had not identified any comparable uncontrolled transactions for the computation of the ALP.

6. Application of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM):

The assessee argued that the combined transaction approach using TNMM was appropriate as the transactions were closely linked and could not be evaluated adequately on an individual basis. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the use of TNMM was appropriate for the royalty and management consultancy fees transactions.

7. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as being premature.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the TPO to re-examine certain issues and delete the unsustainable additions. The order emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the OECD guidelines in transfer pricing matters.

← Previous Next →