2019 (1) TMI 884 - AT - Income Tax

TPA - Comparable selection - assessee is involved in two different activities of manufacture and sale - Held that - Assessee is into manufacture of compressors and also sale of compressors and both the activities are different and therefore, they require different set of comparables. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of AO/TPO for fresh analysis and fresh determination of ALP in accordance with law. Assessee shall be allowed to raise any contentions on account of comparables and also the method to be adopted for determination of the ALP. Grounds are thus considered as allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Transfer pricing adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in international transactions for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.

Analysis:
The assessee appealed against the assessment order under sections 143(3), 92CA(4), and 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act for the AY 2010-11. The main issue raised was the adjustment made by the TPO totaling ?7,98,50,850 to the international transactions involving the sale of AK Kits and components, purchase of components, tools, accessories, compressors, and sale of compressors. The TPO erred in making specific adjustments to the sale of AK Kits and components, purchase of components, tools, accessories, compressors, and sale of compressors. The TPO also erred in the selection of comparable companies for benchmarking, rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, and incorrectly applying the profit level indicator (PU) of Operating profit/Operating cost (OP/OC) while benchmarking the purchase transactions.

The TPO considered the assessee's manufacturing and sale of compressors to its Associated Enterprise (AE), involving international transactions. The TPO adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking the manufacturing activity and the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for the sale transactions. However, the TPO aggregated both transactions and selected comparables, proposing an adjustment of ?5,80,01,717. The assessee objected to the comparables selected by the TPO, but the objections were rejected, leading to the proposed adjustment.

The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the correctness of the claim, consider segmental financial statements, and allocate common expenses for calculation. Despite this direction, the Assessing Officer did not follow the DRP's instructions in computing the Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC). The TPO applied the same set of comparables for both manufacturing and sale transactions, leading to an incorrect adjustment. The Tribunal found that the manufacturing and sale activities required different comparables and remitted the issue back to the AO/TPO for a fresh analysis and determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a fresh analysis and determination of the ALP considering the different nature of the manufacturing and sale activities undertaken by the assessee.