2020 (2) TMI 255 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - benchmarking of international transactions - selection of MAM - HELD THAT - When we examine the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) it has come on record that, during the appellate proceedings, the taxpayer has failed to provide working of the net profit margin for 2 segments i.e. outbound and inbound travel related services, however on combined basis i.e. AE as well as non-AE transactions taking together nor separately for AE and another party from which internal comparables can be examined on TNMM for inbound and outbound services . This factual position has not been disputed by the ld. AR for the taxpayer. In the absence of working of net profit margin of internal comparables for inbound and outbound services, the issue as to benchmarking the international transactions cannot be decided. Now, the taxpayer has come up with segmental account in tabulated form explained in page 2 3 of the synopsis which is required to be examined by the TPO to benchmark the international transactions. So, the TPO is directed to benchmark the international transactions by applying TNMM on the basis of internal comparables in view of the working supplied by the taxpayer. So, the case is remanded back to the TPO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer by following the decisions rendered by the Tribunal in AYs 2007-08 2006-07 in taxpayer s own case. Consequently, the appeal of the taxpayer is allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Addition to total income on account of adjustment in Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions.
2. Disregarding Resale Price Method (RPM) and Cost Plus Method (CPM) in favor of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for determining ALP.
3. Use of external comparables over internal comparables for applying TNMM.
4. Failure to provide segmental profitability for determining ALP.
5. Selection of incomparable companies for benchmarking.
6. Failure to allow variation in determining ALP.
7. Request for additional evidence in support of grounds raised.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the addition to total income due to ALP adjustment, arguing that the CIT (A) erred in applying TNMM instead of RPM and CPM for outbound and inbound travel services. The Tribunal directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to reevaluate using internal comparables based on the taxpayer's provided segmental accounts.

2. The dispute arose from the CIT (A) disregarding RPM and CPM in favor of TNMM for ALP determination. The Tribunal noted the appellant's reliance on internal comparables and directed the TPO to reconsider the benchmarking methodology based on the internal data provided by the taxpayer.

3. The appellant challenged the use of external comparables by the CIT (A) for TNMM application. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of internal comparables and instructed the TPO to reevaluate the ALP using internal data as per previous Tribunal decisions.

4. The failure to provide segmental profitability data led to a remand for the TPO to reassess the ALP based on the segmental accounts submitted by the taxpayer. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of proper documentation for benchmarking international transactions.

5. The appellant objected to the comparability of Club 7 Holiday Ltd. and Indo Asia Leisure Services Ltd. The Tribunal noted the geographical and market differences, emphasizing the need for comparable companies to meet specific criteria for benchmarking.

6. The appellant sought allowance for a variation in ALP determination as per Section 92C(2). The Tribunal did not address this issue explicitly but allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, indicating a potential consideration of the requested variation.

7. Lastly, the appellant requested the opportunity to present additional evidence, following proper procedures. While the Tribunal did not explicitly grant this request, the decision to remand the case back to the TPO implied a chance for further submissions based on the provided segmental accounts.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised by the appellant and the Tribunal's directions for reassessment based on internal comparables and segmental profitability data.

← Previous Next →