9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 587 - HC - Income TaxApplicability of Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) - selection of MAM - Held that - The Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. The difference of opinion between the CIT(A) and the TPO, as to the appropriateness of one or the other methods, cannot per se be a ground for interference; the appropriateness of the method unless shown to be contrary to the Rules specially Rules 10B and 10C, in the opinion of the Court, are hardly issues that ought to be gone into under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
Issues:
1. Applicability of Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) in transfer pricing. 2. Selection of appropriate transfer pricing method. 3. Comparison of profit margins in different business segments. 4. Adjustment of intercompany transfer prices. Issue 1 - Applicability of TNMM: The primary issue in this case was whether the Tribunal erred in affirming the Appellate Commissioner's ruling regarding the applicability of the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM). The Tribunal considered the nature of functions performed by the assessee in relation to international transactions with its associated enterprises (AEs). It was determined that the assessee's role as a routine back office service provider justified the use of TNMM for benchmarking such transactions. The Tribunal found that the TPO's modification of the transfer pricing methodology lacked merit, especially considering the acceptance of certain transactions by the TPO as arm's length. The Court noted the detailed analysis conducted by the ITAT, which included the OECD commentary and the assessee's Transfer Pricing Report. Issue 2 - Selection of Transfer Pricing Method: The dispute arose from the selection of the Resale Price Method (RPM) by the TPO, which was challenged by the assessee. The CIT(A) set aside the TPO's findings, emphasizing the incomparability of services provided by the assessee in different business segments at the gross margin level. The ITAT, upon a fresh consideration, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the RPM was not appropriate due to the functional congruence required and the nature of services provided by the assessee. The Court agreed with the ITAT's conclusion that the TPO's choice of RPM was incorrect and not applicable to the assessee's circumstances. Issue 3 - Comparison of Profit Margins: Another aspect of the case involved the comparison of profit margins in different segments of the assessee's business. The TPO's approach of benchmarking profit margins from subagent segments with those from direct customers was deemed flawed by the ITAT. The Court concurred with the ITAT's reasoning that the two segments were materially different, and the profit margins earned were not comparable. The Court highlighted the incorrect comparison made by the TPO, emphasizing that the assessee acted as a subagent and not a direct customer in transactions with its AE. Issue 4 - Adjustment of Intercompany Transfer Prices: The final issue revolved around the adjustment of intercompany transfer prices. The TPO's downward adjustment to align differences between segments was deemed unwarranted by the ITAT. The Court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasizing that the TPO's adjustment contravened the Income Tax Act and was not justified. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose, and the difference of opinion between authorities regarding transfer pricing methods did not warrant interference unless contrary to specific rules. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the ITAT's decision and providing detailed analysis on the various issues related to transfer pricing methods, profit margin comparisons, and intercompany transfer price adjustments.
|
