9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 627 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - MAM selection - whether adjustment should be applied on international transaction only or at entity level even if TNMM is treated as Most Appropriate Method? - in cross objection the assessee has stated that benefit of proviso to Section 92C(2) ( /-) 5% shall be given when that is taken into consideration then, no adjustment can be made. HELD THAT - Tribunal order for A.Y.2012-13 instead of going on the issue, whether CUP is valid MAM qua this transaction of import of oil or not, albeit has gone on alternative plea that even if TNMM is accepted is applied as done by the by the TPO on his set of comparables, then he cannot make adjustment on the entire segment of manufacturing activities, instead adjustment should be restricted to international transaction. It was held that TPO is not justified in making adjustment to the entire segment of manufacturing activity and it was accordingly restricted to the international transaction of import of oil only even if TNMM is held to be as Most Appropriate Method is applied then TP adjustment should be restricted to international transaction only and benefit of tolerance range of /-5% has to be granted to the assessee. SInce this issue has been settled from the stage of Hon ble High Court 2019 (6) TMI 1529 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT holding that TPO cannot make adjustment to the entire segment of manufacturing activity and only to the extent of international transactions, which is also in conformity with the earlier judgments of Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd 2015 (12) TMI 1130 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Alstom Projects India Ltd. 2016 (12) TMI 1408 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT then consistent with the view, we hold that adjustment should be made only on international transaction. Further, as per law, assessee should be given benefit of proviso to Section 92C (2) of /-5%. And if that is so, then no adjustment is left to be made then, transaction is at arm s length. Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance/adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) by upholding the CUP method over the TNMM method for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. Whether adjustments should be applied to international transactions only or at the entity level. 3. The applicability of the +/- 5% tolerance range under Section 92C(2) for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). Detailed Analysis: 1. Methodology for Determining ALP: The primary issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting adjustments made by the TPO, who applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) instead of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method adopted by the assessee. The TPO had previously applied TNMM in earlier years (A.Y. 2005-06 to 2007-08), which was upheld by the ITAT. However, the assessee argued that the CUP method had been consistently accepted in subsequent years, including A.Y. 2006-07 to 2009-10, and the High Court had confirmed the ITAT's decision for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been consistently discussed and resolved in favor of the assessee in previous orders, acknowledging the CUP method as a valid approach for benchmarking transactions. 2. Scope of Adjustments: The Tribunal examined whether adjustments should be made at the entity level or restricted to international transactions. The TPO had made adjustments based on the entire segment of manufacturing activities, which the Tribunal found inappropriate. The Tribunal emphasized that adjustments should be restricted to international transactions only, aligning with the decisions of the Bombay High Court in similar cases. The Tribunal reiterated that the TPO was not justified in making adjustments to the entire segment of manufacturing activity, and such adjustments should be confined to the international transactions of import of goods. 3. Application of +/- 5% Tolerance Range: The Tribunal addressed the issue of applying the +/- 5% tolerance range under Section 92C(2) for determining the ALP. It was argued that if the adjustments were restricted to international transactions and the tolerance range was considered, the transactions would fall within the permissible limits, negating the need for adjustments. The Tribunal accepted this argument, directing the TPO to apply TNMM but restrict adjustments to the international transactions and grant the benefit of the tolerance range. The Tribunal's decision was based on prior judgments, including those of the Bombay High Court, which had established that adjustments should only be made concerning international transactions and not the entire entity's operations. Conclusion: The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections of the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal concluded that no adjustments were necessary for the years in question, as the transactions were within the arm's length range when considering the +/- 5% tolerance. The Tribunal's order reaffirmed the consistent application of the CUP method for the assessee's transactions and restricted the scope of adjustments to international dealings, aligning with established legal precedents.
|
