2022 (12) TMI 330 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - comparable selection - MAM - Revenue submitted that since there is only one comparable remaining and hence only one price the tolerance range of 5% is not applicable as it is applicable only when there are more than one price and an arithmetic mean has been arrived at - HELD THAT - The first proviso itself envisages that there can be only one price determined by most appropriate method. The second proviso mentions about application of tolerance range to the arm s length price so determined. So the reference to so determined is with regard to first proviso and as already explained by first proviso contemplates that there can be only one price or more than one price. Hence, the objection of the ld. DR is rejected. Accordingly, we remit the issue to the file of AO to reject the two comparables already found uncomparable by ITAT in assessee s own case and thereafter make the computation as per law as discussed by us hereinabove. Disallowance of bad debt - Taxpayer s claim of bad debt was disallowed with respect to related entities on the ground that sufficient proof of their becoming bad has not been established - HELD THAT - We find that the law in this regard has already been settled in the case of TRF Ltd 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT . The AO is directed to follow the same.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the AO/TPO in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
2. Adjustment to total income under Chapter-X of the Income Tax Act.
3. Nature of services provided by the appellant.
4. Rejection of economic and benchmarking analysis by the appellant.
5. Use of internal TNMM and classification of services.
6. Adjustment of ALP by ± 5%.
7. Disallowance of bad debts written off.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the AO/TPO in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP):
The appellant challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO/TPO to determine the ALP, claiming it was "bad in law and void ab-initio." The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, indicating that the primary focus was on the substantive matters of the case.

2. Adjustment to Total Income under Chapter-X of the Income Tax Act:
The DRP sustained an adjustment to the total income of Rs. 8,37,93,883/-, which was later enhanced to Rs. 8,90,60,112/-. The Tribunal reviewed the TPO's method of using external TNMM and the comparables selected, ultimately deciding to exclude two comparables (Container Corporation of India Limited and Sanco Trans Limited) based on previous ITAT rulings in the assessee's own case.

3. Nature of Services Provided by the Appellant:
The TPO erroneously categorized the services provided by the appellant, including "Fuel Management" and "Escort Services," which the appellant disputed. The Tribunal referenced prior ITAT decisions that clarified the appellant's services were primarily related to passenger and baggage handling, not specialized services like refueling or security.

4. Rejection of Economic and Benchmarking Analysis by the Appellant:
The TPO and DRP rejected the appellant's use of internal TNMM and multiple-year data, and the reliability of segmental accounts. The Tribunal found that the TPO's rejection was based on an incorrect understanding of the appellant's functional profile, as previously adjudicated by the ITAT.

5. Use of Internal TNMM and Classification of Services:
The DRP erred in holding that the internal TNMM used by the appellant was a sort of CUP and in reclassifying the nature of services. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's method, noting that the internal TNMM was appropriate given the correct functional profile of the appellant's services.

6. Adjustment of ALP by ± 5%:
The DRP did not allow the benefit of adjustment of the ALP by ± 5%. The Tribunal clarified that the tolerance range applies even if only one price is determined by the most appropriate method, rejecting the Revenue's argument that more than one price is necessary for the application of the tolerance range.

7. Disallowance of Bad Debts Written Off:
The AO disallowed Rs. 13,38,424/- on account of bad debts written off, questioning their validity. The Tribunal directed the AO to follow the Supreme Court ruling in TRF Ltd vs. CIT, which states that once bad debts are written off in the books, it is sufficient for claiming deduction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to exclude the two comparables found uncomparable by the ITAT in the appellant's own case and to make the computation as per law. The AO was also directed to follow the Supreme Court ruling for the bad debts issue. The appellant's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.