9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 831 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - Selection of MAM - CUP v/s TNMM - most appropriate method for determining the arm s-length price of the export of rice made by the assessee - Assessee has adopted CUP as the most appropriate method, whereas the learned transfer pricing officer and DRP has held that transactional net margin method is the most appropriate method - HELD THAT - We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee s own case 2014 (3) TMI 63 - ITAT DELHI thus we hold that CUP method is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee. Accordingly on this issue we reverse the orders of the learned transfer pricing officer as well as the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel. Accordingly, ground numbers 2 4 of the appeal are allowed. Benefit of set of where the assessee is has transacted at a price lower than and arm s-length price - HELD THAT - As we have upheld that the cup method is the most appropriate method for determination of the arm s-length price, and the whole issue set-aside to the file of the learned assessing officer, the assessee may raise this issue before the learned transfer pricing officer at the time of three determination of the arm s-length price. Therefore this ground of appeal is also set-aside to the file of the learned assessing officer/transfer pricing officer where the assessee is at liberty to raise the above issue. The learned transfer pricing officer may examine the claim of the assessee after giving a proper opportunity of hearing. In the result additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for Transfer Pricing. 2. Rejection of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method. 3. Application of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). 4. Selection and Rejection of Comparables. 5. Adjustment for Foreign Exchange Fluctuations. 6. Capacity Utilization Adjustment. 7. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings. 8. Additional Ground for Set-off under CUP Method. 9. Computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for Transfer Pricing: The primary issue was whether the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method or the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) should be used to determine the arm's-length price for the international transaction of rice sales. The assessee argued for the CUP method, citing its use in the previous assessment year 2008-09, which was upheld by the ITAT and is pending before the High Court. The Tribunal found that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09, where CUP was deemed the most appropriate method. 2. Rejection of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method: The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) rejected the CUP method, arguing that it requires a high degree of comparability, which was not met by the data provided. The Tribunal, however, noted that the data from the Tips Software, which compiles customs data, was reliable and comprehensive. The Tribunal found the TPO's rejection of this data unfounded and upheld the assessee's use of the CUP method. 3. Application of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM): The TPO and DRP had applied the TNMM, arguing it was more appropriate due to the need for a larger number of comparables and the nature of the transactions. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the CUP method should be preferred unless another method is proven to be more reliable. The Tribunal reversed the TPO and DRP's decision, directing the use of the CUP method. 4. Selection and Rejection of Comparables: The TPO had selected comparables with an average operating margin of 6.92%, compared to the assessee's -2.99%. The Tribunal found that the TPO's selection criteria and rejection of the assessee's comparables were not justified, given the preference for the CUP method. The Tribunal directed a fresh determination of the arm's-length price using the CUP method. 5. Adjustment for Foreign Exchange Fluctuations: The assessee argued that the TPO erred in considering foreign exchange gains/losses as non-operating in nature. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail but implied that it would be reconsidered during the fresh determination of the arm's-length price using the CUP method. 6. Capacity Utilization Adjustment: The assessee's claim for capacity utilization adjustment was rejected by the DRP for lack of substantiated data. The Tribunal did not specifically rule on this but directed a fresh determination of the arm's-length price, allowing the assessee to raise this issue again. 7. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings: The assessee challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C). The Tribunal deemed this premature and dismissed the ground, stating it would be reconsidered after the fresh determination of the arm's-length price. 8. Additional Ground for Set-off under CUP Method: The assessee raised an additional ground for set-off where the transaction price was higher than the arm's-length price. The Tribunal admitted this legal ground, noting it required no fresh facts. The Tribunal directed the TPO to consider this set-off during the fresh determination of the arm's-length price using the CUP method. 9. Computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB: For AY 2013-14, the assessee challenged the addition of the transfer pricing adjustment to book profits under Section 115JB. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue but directed a fresh determination of the arm's-length price, implying that the computation of book profits would also be reconsidered. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, directing a fresh determination of the arm's-length price using the CUP method and allowing the assessee to raise all relevant issues during this process. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's use of the CUP method, reversing the TPO and DRP's application of the TNMM, and directed reconsideration of other related issues.
|
