2016 (12) TMI 1343 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on upward adjustment in the international transaction related to sales - Held that - Assessing Officer /TPO has not given any justification for adopting the CPM. Even in remand report, Assessing Officer /TPO has not given comments in respect of each and every ground and submission of assessee even though the TPO has sent the report after long time. All these things show that the TPO/Assessing Officer does not have any justification or valid reason for their upward adjustment. If the order of the Assessing Officer /TPO does not signifies that as to why assessee s calculations were wrong and why TNMM adopted by assessee has to be rejected and why the CPM was correct as adopted by the Assessing Officer /TPO. These cases do not appear to be comparable for the reason discussed above. In view of above, CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by TPO/Assessing Officer. This reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition in international transaction related to sales.
2. Application of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and Cost Plus Method (CPM).
3. Justification for upward adjustment by the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
4. Comparison of assessee's case with other companies for determining arms length price.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the deletion of an addition of &8377; 97,30,144/- in an international transaction related to sales. The company engaged in manufacturing and exporting diamond studded jewelry had entered into international transactions with associated enterprises. The method used was Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The TPO recommended an upward adjustment, which the Assessing Officer made. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, leading to the appeal.

2. The Assessing Officer and TPO justified the upward adjustment based on the company's loss incurred due to non-recovery of fixed assets, suggesting the use of gross profit as a benchmark. However, the TPO did not adequately explain why TNMM was not acceptable and why CPM was chosen. The TPO failed to follow the procedures under Section 92C of the Act and Rules 10B & 10C, lacking justification for rejecting the TNMM adopted by the assessee.

3. The comparison of the company with other entities like Deep Diamond India Ltd., Moon Diamonds Ltd., Shanti Vijay Jewels Ltd., and Sovereign Diamonds Ltd. was deemed inappropriate by the assessee. Each comparison was challenged on grounds of turnover, related party transactions, market presence, and operational history, among others. The TPO's selection of cases with significant variations in gross profit margin was also questioned.

4. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, emphasizing the lack of justification by the Assessing Officer and TPO for adopting CPM over TNMM. The Tribunal found the comparisons made by the TPO to be flawed, supporting the CIT(A)'s reasoned factual finding. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal and procedural aspects of the judgment, focusing on the issues raised and the Tribunal's decision regarding the international transaction and the application of transfer pricing methods.