9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 393 - AT - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustment - Held that - We hold that international transaction of payment of royalty is a separate transaction and therefore should be bench marked separately. The condition to prove that technical service was actually rendered by the AE to assessee-company is a condition precedent for allowance of the same. The TPO had no occasion to examine this aspect as the assessee-company had not produced any evidence in support of the technical services rendered. Before us the assessee-company filed certain evidence in an endeavour to establish that actually technical services were rendered. Therefore we deem it fit to remit the matter back to the file of the TPO/AO for the purpose of de novo determination of ALP after satisfying himself that the services were actually rendered.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. Corporate Tax - Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation 3. Corporate Tax - Carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment The primary issue revolves around the determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the royalty payment made by the assessee to its Associated Enterprise (AE). The TPO, AO, and DRP determined the ALP to be NIL, leading to a transfer pricing adjustment of ?32,918,381. The assessee raised several points of contention: - Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method: The authorities did not provide any comparable uncontrolled price contracts for the application of the CUP method. - Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM): The authorities rejected the TNMM analysis conducted by the assessee without providing cogent reasons. - Comparable Uncontrolled Transactions (CUT): Both external and internal CUT searches provided by the assessee were disregarded. - Intercompany Royalty Rates: Comparable intercompany royalty rates between the parent and other group companies were ignored. - Legally Binding Agreement: The authorities disregarded the legally binding agreement between the assessee and its AE without assigning cogent reasons. - Economic Value and Tangible Benefit: The authorities concluded that no economic value or tangible and commercial benefit was derived from the royalty payment. - Additional Documentation: The authorities did not consider additional documentation provided by the assessee as proof of tangible and commercial benefits received. The assessee argued that the royalty payment should be aggregated with the total manufacturing cost and that the net margin earned was higher than that of comparable companies. The assessee cited several judgments to support their claim, including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of EKL Appliances, which stated that the benefit test is no longer relevant to decide the ALP of a transaction. The Tribunal held that the royalty payment is a separate international transaction and should be benchmarked separately under the CUP method. The Tribunal also noted that the burden is on the assessee to prove that technical services were actually rendered by the AE. The matter was remitted back to the TPO/AO for de novo determination of ALP after verifying the actual rendering of services. 2. Corporate Tax - Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation The assessee contended that the AO and DRP erred in setting off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Year 1997-98 amounting to ?33,060,114 instead of the eligible sum of ?36,834,436. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on this point, but it was part of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 3. Corporate Tax - Carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation The assessee also argued that the AO and DRP erred in computing the amount of unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward to future assessment years at ?1,544,189,037 instead of ?1,919,416,420 claimed in the return of income. Similar to the previous issue, the Tribunal did not delve into a detailed analysis but acknowledged it as part of the grounds of appeal. Conclusion The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the TPO/AO for a fresh determination of the ALP of the royalty payment after verifying the actual rendering of services. The issues related to brought forward and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation were acknowledged but not specifically addressed in detail in the judgment.
|
