Transfer Pricing: Foreign associated enterprise can be taken as ‘Tested Party’

While there is nothing in the transfer pricing law as to the selection of the tested party, the tested party normally should be the party in respect of which reliable data for comparison is easily and readily available and fewest adjustments in computations are needed. It may be local or foreign entity, i.e., one party to the transaction. The object of transfer pricing exercise is to gather reliable data, which can be considered without difficulty by both the parties, i.e., taxpayer and the revenue. It is also true that generally least of the complex controlled taxpayer should be taken as a tested party. But where comparable or almost comparable, controlled and uncontrolled transactions or entities are available, it may not be right to eliminate them from consideration because they look to be complex. If the taxpayer wishes to take foreign AE as a tested party, then it must ensure that it is such an entity for which the relevant data for comparison is available in public domain or is furnished to the tax administration. The taxpayer is not then entitled to take a stand that such data cannot be called for or insisted upon from the taxpayer. This is supported by the United Nation’s Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries which stated that a foreign entity (a foreign AE) could also be taken as a tested party for comparison. The revenue’s argument that GMDAT should not be selected as a ‘tested party’ as it does not fall within the ambit of TPO’s jurisdiction and he can neither call for any additional information nor scrutinize their books of accounts is not acceptable because the Revenue can get all the relevant particulars around the globe by using the latest technology under its thumb or direct the assessee to furnish the same (Ranbaxy Laboratories 110 ITD 428 (Del), Mastek Limited, Development Consultants 136 TTJ 129 & Sony India 114 ITD 448 (Del) followed; Onward Technologies (Mum) & Aurionpro Solutions (Mum) not followed/ distinguished)

S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Scope in the context of shares held as stock-in-trade explained

S. 14A gets attracted on incurring of expenditure in relation to tax-exempt income. The purpose for which the shares are purchased and held would not impact the applicability of s. 14A. S. 14A comes into play irrespective of the head of income (on account of it arising qua a trading asset) under which the income is assessable. The fact that the share trading business yields both taxable income in the form of share trading profit and tax-exempt income by way of dividend income makes no difference to the applicability of s. 14A. Accordingly, s. 14A applies to shares held as stock-in-trade

S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Interest expenditure has to be netted against interest income and only the difference, if any, can be considered for disallowance

No nexus has been established by the AO between the expenditure incurred by the assessee and the tax free income earned by him. Further, as the interest income was more than interest expense and the assessee was having net positive interest income, the interest expenditure cannot be considered for disallowance u/s 14A and Rule 8D (Trade Apartment (ITAT Kol) & Morgan Stanley (ITAT Mum) (both included in the file) followed)