Search Results For: Transfer Pricing


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 25, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Arbitrary action of the AO in treating the payment by the assessee to the AE as "excessive/ unreasonable" deplored. Whims and fancies of an AO cannot decide tax liability of an assessee. Either the AO was ignorant of the TP provisions or he was adamant to make the disallowance at any cost. Either way, his action cannot be endorsed

It is said that rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. In other words, rights demand that a person using his rights should also observe his duties. In taxation matters discretionary powers have been given to the AO’s but they are expected to use the power in a fair and just manner. State as an institution can levy and collect only due taxes from its subjects. So, if the AOs determine the tax liability in an unfair manner and if the demand is not of the DUE taxes appellate authorities are expected to allow relief to the assessee. He very well knew that the assessee had objected to the ad hoc disallowance and rejection of the CUP method. But, he stuck to his guns while submitting the remand report and supported the estimated disallowance. His approach goes against the very basis of the TP provisions. Either he was ignorant of the TP provisions or he was adamant to make the disallowance at any cost. But, his action cannot be endorsed. Why was the transaction entered in to by the AE with MIT Hungary could not be a basis for arriving at ALP was never discussed by the AO. The assessee has discharged his burden of proof. After that onus had shifted to the assessee and in our opinion he has failed miserably to prove that his action of making disallowance was supported by any logical argument or scientific basis. Whims and fancies of an AO cannot decide tax liability of an assessee

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 4, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 7, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer pricing of AMP Expenditure: In the case of a manufacturer operating in a competitive industry, high AMP expenditure cannot be assumed to have been incurred for the benefit of the brand owner. The TPO has to prove that the real intention of the assessee in incurring AMP expenses was to benefit the AEs and not to promote its own business. Also, if the assessee has reported high turnover & profits & offered to tax, the basic ingredient required to invoke s. 92 that there is transfer of profit from India remains unproved. In the absence of the AO/ TPO showing that there is a formal/ informal agreement to share the AMP expenditure, the adjustment cannot be made. The matter cannot be remanded to the AO/ TPO for reconsideration

In these circumstances, the fundamental question to be answered is to decide as to whether in absence of any agreement for payment of AMP expenses by the AEs can it be held that there was an international transaction only on the basis that AMP expenditure, incurred by the assessee, would have benefitted the AEs, who owned the brands used by the assessee. In our opinion, the arguments suffers from the very basic flaw that it presumes that the assessees would incur AMP not to promote its own business. In other words, the TPO has failed to prove that the real intention of the assessee in incurring advertisement and marketing expenses were to benefit the AEs and not to promote its own business. The turnover of the assessee proves that during the year under consideration the assessee had done a reasonably good business, as stated earlier. The resultant profit was offered for taxation in India. Therefore, transferring of profit from India, the basic ingredient to invoke the provisions of section 92 of the Act, remains unproved

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 7, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92(2): Important principles of law laid down with regard to the “Need Test”, “Evidence Test” or “Rendition Test” to evaluate the ALP of intra-group services rendered by an Associated Enterprise and whether the TPO has the right to determine the ALP at ‘Nil’

Rendering of services must be seen from the view point of the assessee and further assessee cannot be asked to keep and maintain evidences of services rendered by AE higher than which is expected from a businessman receiving services from an unrelated provider. Therefore, we reject the view point of Ld. TPO and Ld. DRP that assessee has not shown the receipt of the services. In view of above we are of the view that assessee has justified the receipt of services and satisfied the rendition test

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 7, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Corporate Guarantees are not comparable to Bank Guarantees & so the commission of 3% charged by Banks is not a benchmark to evaluate the ALP of a corporate guarantee but it has to taken at 0.5%. ITAT decisions which upheld the 3% rate cannot be followed as they are contrary to Everest Kanto 378 ITR 57 (Bom)

Instances of commercial banks providing guarantees could not be compared to instances of issuance of corporate guarantee. When commercial banks issue bank guarantees, the same is quite distinct in character, than the situation where a corporate issues guarantee to the effect that, if a subsidiary associated enterprise does not repay a loan, the same would be made good by such corporate. It is quite clear that the manner in which the Transfer Pricing Officer has proceeded to determine the arm’s length rate based on the probable rate being charged by the commercial banks is not justified. In this view of the matter, we are unable to approve 3% rate of guarantee commission fee determined as arm’s length rate by the income-tax authorities. In the alternative, the addition that is required to be sustained is the position canvassed by the assessee before the Transfer Pricing Officer i.e. adoption of 0.50% as arm’s length rate for the purpose of determining the arm’s length income on account of guarantee commission fee in the present case

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 31, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing Of Corporate Guarantees: Explanation i(c) to S. 92 B, though stated to be clarificatory and stated to be effective from 01.04.2002, has to be necessarily treated as effective from at best AY 2013-14 as it is an "anti abuse" provision. Dept’s submission that Bharti Airtel 161 TTJ 428 is “per incuriam” is not acceptable. Law laid down in Micro Ink 176 TTJ 8 (Ahd) on transfer pricing implications of corporate guarantees reiterated

It is very important to bear in mind the fact that right now we are dealing with amendment of a transfer pricing related provision which is in the nature of a SAAR (specific anti abuse rule), and that every anti abuse legislation, whether SAAR (specific anti abuse rule) or GAAR (general anti abuse rule), is a legislation seeking the taxpayers to organize their affairs in a manner compliant with the norms set out in such anti abuse legislation. An anti-abuse legislation does not trigger the levy of taxes; it only tells you what behavior is acceptable or what is not acceptable. What triggers levy of taxes is non-compliance with the manner in which the anti-abuse regulations require the taxpayers to conduct their affairs. In that sense, all anti abuse legislations seek a certain degree of compliance with the norms set out therein. It is, therefore, only elementary that amendments in the anti-abuse legislations can only be prospective. It does not make sense that someone tells you today as to how you should have behaved yesterday, and then goes on to levy a tax because you did not behave in that manner yesterday. It is for this reason that the Explanation to Section 92 B, though stated to be clarificatory and stated to be effective from 1st April 2002, has to be necessarily treated as effective from at best the assessment year 2013-14

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 3, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Even if TNMM is found acceptable as regards all other transactions, it is open to the TPO to segregate a portion and subject it to an entirely different method i.e. CUP if the assessee does not provide satisfactory replies to his queries

The narrow controversy which this Court is called upon to decide is as to whether the adoption of the CUP method by the revenue authorities was justified. What the assessee urges essentially is that whereas the TP report furnished by it applied the TNMM method which was found acceptable as regards all other transactions/business activities, it was not open to the revenue to segregate a portion and subject it to an entirely different method, i.e. CUP. The assessee relies upon paras 3.6, 3.9 and 3.10 of the OECD guidelines in support of its contentions. It also relies upon certain rulings of different Benches of the ITAT to urge that such sequential segregation and setting portion of the TP exercise – so to say, to break with the integrity is unjustified and unsupported by the text of the law, i.e. Section 92C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also relies upon Rule 10E of the Income Tax Rules, which guide the proper approach of the TPO in such matters

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 3, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The existence of an "international transaction" w.r.t. AMP Expenditure cannot be assumed. The onus is on the TPO to prove such transaction. There is no machinery provision to ascertain the price to promote the AE's brand values. The AMP Expenditure should be treated as operating cost to apply TNMM and determine ALP of transactions with AE

The operating profit cost to the total operating cost was adopted as Profit Level Indicator which means that the AMP expenditure was not considered as a part of the operating cost. This goes to show that the AMP expenditure was not subsumed in the operating profitability of the assessee-company. Therefore, in order to determine the ALP of international transaction with its AE, it is sine qua non that the AMP expenditure should be considered as a part of the operating cost

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Argument that transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made if the assessee's income is deductible u/s 10A/ 10B is not acceptable. Contrary view in TCS cannot be followed as it is obiter dicta & contrary to law laid down in Aztech Software 107 ITD 141 (SB)

No exception has been carved out by the statute for non-determination of the ALP of an international transaction of an assessee who is eligible for the benefit of deduction section 10A/10B or any other section of Chapter- VIA of the Act. Section 92(1) clearly provides that any income arising from an international transaction is required to be computed having regard to its arm’s length price. There is no provision exempting the computation of total income arising from an international transaction having regard to its ALP, in the case of an assessee entitled to deduction u/s 10A or 10B or any other relevant provision. Section 92C dealing with computation of ALP clearly provides that the ALP in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by one of the methods given in this provision. This section also does not immune an international transaction from the computation of its ALP when income is otherwise eligible for deduction. On the contrary, we find that sub-section (4) of section 92C plainly stipulates that where an ALP is determined, the AO may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the ALP so determined. This shows that the total income of an assessee entering into an international transaction, is required to be necessarily computed having regard to its ALP without any exception

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Companies with large turnover like Infosys & Wipro are not comparable to companies with smaller turnover and should be excluded from the list of comparables

The said Companies are no doubt large and distinct companies where the area of development of subject services are different and as such the profit earned therefrom cannot be a bench-marked or equated with the assessee. The Tribunal whilst passing the impugned Order has considered the said principles whilst coming to the conclusion that the said three Companies cannot be treated to be comparable to the Assessee Company. The turn over is obviously a relevant factor to consider the comparability

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 1, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
CUP method can be applied by a comparing a pricing formulae, rather than the pricing quantification in amount. Rule 10AB inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2012 is beneficial in nature and so retrospective w.e.f. 01.04.2002

Rule 10B(1)(f) inserted vide notification dated 23rd May 2012 is not a residual method in the sense that it is not a condition precedent for the application of this method that all other methods set out in s. 92C (1)(a) to 92C(1)(e) and as elaborated under rule 10B(1)(a) to (e), must fail and only then this method can be applied. This method is at par with all other methods of determining the arm’s length price as set out in sections 92C(1)(a) to (f), and, in terms of Section 92C(2), the most appropriate method, referred to in Section 92C(1), “shall be applied, for determination of arm’s length price, in the manner prescribed”. Therefore, as long as the method covered by rule 10AB, which is duly covered by Section 92C(1) satisfies the test of being the ‘most appropriate method’, it can be applied to a fact situation. The expression ‘ price which….would have been charged on paid” is used in rule 10BA, dealing with this method, in this method the place of “price charged or paid”, as is used in rule 10B(1)(a), dealing with CUP method, such an expression not only covers the actual price but also the price as would have been, hypothetically speaking, paid if the same transaction was entered into with an independent enterprise. This hypothetical price may not only cover bonafide quotations, but it also takes it beyond any doubt or controversy that where pricing mechanism for associated enterprise and independent enterprise is the same, the price charged to the associated enterprises will be treated as an arm’s length price. In this view of the matter, the business model said to have been adopted by the assessee, in principle, meets the test of arm’s length price determination under rule 10BA as well