Entire law on taxability of “composite” contracts for supply of offshore & onshore supply & services under Act & DTAA explained

(i) The first question which requires to be decided is whether it is a case of composite contract? In our considered opinion, the AO was initially not correct in holding that the contract was a composite one devoid of any bifurcation towards onshore and offshore supplies and services, which stand was subsequently altered to the correct position. We, therefore, hold that it is wide off the mark to categorize the present contract agreement as a composite one since all its major four components are distinctly identifiable with separate consideration for each. There is a separate mention of consideration for supply of equipments and for rendition of services. Simply because the supply of equipment and the rendition of services is to one party and for a common purpose, we are unable to find any logic in treating the entire amount as one composite payment attributable commonly both to the supply of equipment and rendering of services, more so when there is a specific identifiable amount relatable to these segments

S. 80-IB(10): Limit on extent of commercial area imposed by clause (d) of s. 80IB (10) inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2005 does not apply to projects approved before that date

In the assessee’s own case for the same project relating to AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07, which falls after the insertion of clause (d) to s. 80IB(10), the Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of the housing project. Not only this, in Manan Corporation 214 Taxmann 373 (Guj) it was held that the condition of limiting commercial establishment/shops to 2000 sq.ft, which has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2005 would be applicable for projects approved on or after 1.4.2005 and where the approval of the project was prior to 31.3.2005, the amended provision would have no application for those projects. The Gujarat High Court placed heavily reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Brahma & Associates 333 ITR 289 (Bom)

Transfer Pricing provisions do not apply if the AE is assessed in India & there is no chance of shifting of profits outside India or erosion of tax base

(iv) The object behind enactment of transfer pricing regulations is to prevent shifting of profits outside India as is brought out by Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416 (SC) & Circular No. 14 to the Finance Act 2001. In the present case, there is no possibility of shifting of profits outside India or erosion of country’s tax base because the PE profits of the AE are assessable to tax in India. Therefore, the transactions with the AEs are outside the purview of the transfer pricing regulations

Transfer Pricing: Adjustment to profit margin for “capacity underutilization” can be made. In choosing comparables, there cannot be a cherry picking for deciding parameters of rejection. All comparables must face the same test

Under Rule 10B (1)(e)(ii), an adjustment to the net profit margin has to be made for “capacity underutilization”. Capacity underutilization by enterprises is an important factor affecting net profit margin in the open market because lower capacity utilization results in higher per unit costs, which, in turn, results in lower profits. Of course, the fundamental issue, so far as acceptability of such adjustments is concerned, is reasonable accuracy embedded in the mechanism for such adjustments, and as long as such an adjustment mechanism can be found, no objection can be taken to the adjustment. On facts, the CIT(A)’s approach is reasonable and the adjustments are on a conceptually sound basis

Transfer Pricing: TPO cannot sit in judgement on commercial expediency. RBI approval means the payment is at ALP. If overall TNMM analysis done, royalty cannot be analyzed separately

The TPO is not entitled to sit on judgment on the business and commercial expediency of the assessee in paying royalty to its’ parent company as per the provisions of the Act as laid down clearly by the Delhi High Court in EKL Appliances 345 ITR 241. It is also noted that various Tribunals such as DCIT vs. Sona Okegawa Precision Forgings (ITA No. 5386/Del/2010), Hero Motocorp (ITA No 5130/Del/2010), ThyssenKrupp Industries (ITA No 6460/Mum/2012), Abhishek Auto Industries (ITA No 1433/Del/2009) have taken a view that RBI approval of the Royalty rates itself implies that the payments are at Arm’s Length and hence no further adjustment needs to be made viewed from this angle too. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that once TNMM has been applied to the assessee company’s transaction, it covers under its ambit the Royalty transactions in question too and hence separate analysis and consequent deletion of the Royalty payments by the TPO seems erroneous. We draw support from Cadbury India (ITA No 7408/Mum/2010 and ITA No.7641/Mum/2010 wherein the ITAT upheld the use of TNMM for Royalty

Transfer Pricing: No bar on reliance of private database u/R 10D(3). Nuances of the CUP Method under Rule 10B(1)(a)(i) explained

(i) Rule 10 D(3) is only illustrative in nature and merely describes the information required to be maintained by the assessee under section 92D “shall be supported by authentic documents, which may include the following …”. The logic employed by the Transfer Pricing Officer that since databases compiled by private entities is not included in rule 10D (3), such databases cannot be relied upon by the assessee is clearly fallacious inasmuch as an item not being included in illustrative list of required documents does not take outside the ambit of ‘acceptable document’ for the required purposes. In any event, all that Tips Software does is to collect the data, compile the same in easy to refer format and make it available to the end-user of such data online. The data is public data maintained by the customs department at various ports. It was also open to the TPO to, if he had any doubts, call for further information from this database supplier and examine authenticity of the data so furnished. His summary rejection of the data as unreliable on a technical ground is not tenable in law

Transfer Pricing: Unaudited segmental accounts can be relied upon for comparing profitability of controlled transactions with uncontrolled transactions. While size is relevant in entity level comparison, it is not relevant in transaction level comparison within the same entity

(i) In applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) under Rule 10B(1)(e) it is not necessary that the net profit computations, in the case of internal comparables (i.e. assessee’s transactions with independent enterprise), have to be based on the audited books of accounts or the books of accounts regularly maintained by the assessee. All that is necessary for the purpose of computing arm’s length price, under TNMM on the basis of internal comparables, is computation of net profit margin, subject to comparability adjustments affecting net profit margin of uncontrolled transactions, on the same parameters for the transactions with AEs as well as Non AEs, i.e. independent enterprises, and as long as the net profits earned from the controlled transactions are the same or higher than the net profits earned on uncontrolled transactions, no ALP adjustments are warranted. It is not at all necessary that such a computation should be based on segmental accounts in the books of accounts regularly maintained by the assessee and subjected to audit

No S. 14A/ Rule 8D disallowance if primary object of investment is to hold controlling stake in group concern and not to earn tax-free income

We find merit and substance in the contention of the assessee that no expenditure had been incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income on this point because the investment has been made by the assessee in the group concern and not in the shares of any un-related party. Therefore, the primary object of investment is holding controlling stake in the group concern and not earning any income out of investment. Further the investment were made long back and not in the year under consideration. Therefore, in view of the fact that the investment are in the group concern we do not find any reason to believe that the assessee would have incurred any administrative expenses in holding these investments. The AO has not brought on record any material to show that the assessee has incurred any expenditure in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income

Salary income accrues at the place where the services are rendered and not where the appointment letter is received. If salary, after accrual abroad, is brought into India, it is not taxable on receipt basis. S. 6(5) which deals with residential status is redundant

The next objection of the Assessing Officer is that the money was received in India, since, beyond any dispute or controversy, the salary cheques were credited to the assessee’s account with HSBC, Mumbai. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the law is trite that ‘receipt’ of income, for this purpose, refers to the first occasion when assessee gets the money in his own control – real or constructive. What is material is the receipt of income in its character as income, and not what happens subsequently once the income, in its character as such is received by the assessee or his agent; an income cannot be received twice or on multiple occasions. As the bank statement of the assessee clearly reveals these are US dollar denominated receipts from the foreign employer and credited to non resident external account maintained by the assessee wi th HSBC Mumbai . The assessee was in lawful right to receive these monies, as an employee, at the place of employment, i .e. at the location of its foreign employer, and it is a matter of convenience that the monies were thereafter transferred to India. These monies were at the disposal of the assessee outside India, and, it was in exercise of his rights to so dispose of the money, that monies were transferred to India

S. 195 TDS obligation depends on law prevailing on date of payment and is not affected by retrospective amendment. No s. 40(a)(i) disallowance can be made if that law did not require TDS to be deducted

In accordance with the law laid down in Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries, which was good law at the time of the remittance, unless the services are rendered in India, the same cannot be brought to tax as ‘fees for technical services’ u/s 9. Though the law was amended retrospectively, so far as tax withholding liability is concerned, it depends on the law as it existed at the point of time when payments, from which taxes ought to have been withheld, were made. The tax deductor cannot be expected to have clairvoyance of knowing how the law will change in future. A retrospective amendment in law does change the tax liability in respect of an income, with retrospective effect, but it cannot change the tax withholding liability, with retrospective effect. As there is no material whatsoever to establish that the design and development services were rendered in India, the assessee did not have any liability under s. 195 r.w.s. 9(1)(vii) to deduct tax at source from these payments. As a corollary thereto, no disallowance can be made in respect of these payments u/s 40(a)(i)