2020 (8) TMI 317 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - addition made on application of CUP method for determination of ALP of international transactions by the AO - payment to its parent company on account of management service fees on which taxes were deducted at source - According to AO assessee has not submitted any evidence to substantiate that the services were actually received - assessee has failed to furnish a cost benefit analysis demonstrating the benefits derived from services received from the AE AND documentation produced by the assessee to support its claim for receipt of services is too generic - DR stated that the issue may be restored to the file of the AO as in his remand report, the AO has not made any comment on the cost benefit analysis - as per CIT-A AO was not justified in adopting CUP method and determining the ALP of the transaction as NIL and consequently making an adjustment to the income - HELD THAT - We do not find any force in this contention of the ld. DR. In our considered opinion, no second innings should be given to appreciate the same set of facts which were already before the Assessing Officer. Moreover, in the remand report, the Assessing Officer himself has accepted that if the management fees had not been paid by the appellant, the true up adjustment received would have been ₹ 2.51 crores only and profits of the appellant would have been less than the profits returned but it. Cost benefit analysis was furnished by the assessee during the remand proceedings but the Assessing Officer did not care to examine the same and now the ld. DR is asking for remand. But the ld. DR could not point out any factual defect in the findings of the first appellate authority. In light of remand report and factual findings of the ld. CIT(A), and considering the treatment given in subsequent A.Y by the Transfer Pricing Officers, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer on application of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions by the Assessing Officer.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of an addition of ?3,24,90,810 made on the application of the CUP method for determining the ALP of international transactions.
2. The Assessing Officer contended that the assessee failed to substantiate the receipt of services and did not provide a cost-benefit analysis, leading to the addition of ?3,24,90,810.
3. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer to verify various aspects related to the management fees paid by the assessee to its associated enterprise.
4. The CIT(A) observed discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's calculation, noting that the actual adjustment should have been ?2,94,56,764, and considered the service tax paid, TDS deduction, and true-up adjustments received by the assessee.
5. The CIT(A) found that the management service fee claim had been examined in subsequent years without adjustments, indicating that the payments were at arm's length, leading to the deletion of the adjustment.
6. The Revenue argued for a remand to re-examine the cost-benefit analysis, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that no factual defects were found in the initial findings and considering the treatment in subsequent assessment years by Transfer Pricing Officers.
7. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on the CUP method for determining the ALP of international transactions.

This judgment showcases a detailed analysis of the application of the CUP method for determining the ALP of international transactions, emphasizing the importance of factual findings, remand reports, and subsequent treatment by Transfer Pricing Officers in reaching a decision.