Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (5) TMI 1521 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Customs Duty Adjustments
2. Technical Services Fees Adjustments

Detailed Analysis:

1. Customs Duty Adjustments:

The respondent-assessee, a company engaged in trading and distribution of Completely Knocked Down (CKD) Parts of Motorbikes, reported international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) and sought to benchmark these transactions using Cost Plus Method (CPM). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) suggested upward TP adjustments, rejecting the Transfer Pricing (TP) study report submitted by the respondent-assessee. The TPO proposed adjustments based on the arithmetic mean of Gross Profit Margin of selected comparables.

The respondent-assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who directed adjustments for customs duty incurred, as comparables did not incur such expenses. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., allowing adjustments to the profit margin of the respondent-assessee.

The Revenue contended that economic adjustments for customs duty should not be granted, citing the decision of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Fresenius Kabi India Private Limited. It argued that any differences should be adjusted in the operating margin of the comparables, not the respondent-assessee.

The Tribunal held that adjustments should be made to the margins of the comparables, not the respondent-assessee, citing the decision in the case of ACIT vs. Nord Drive Systems Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to adjust the margins of the comparables, reversing the CIT(A)'s order to this extent.

2. Technical Services Fees Adjustments:

The TPO had determined the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for technical services fees at Rs. Nil, as the respondent-assessee failed to demonstrate the necessity and actual conditions of services. The CIT(A), however, concluded that the respondent-assessee had availed technical services from its AEs, based on additional evidence provided, and found fault with the TPO for not benchmarking the transactions using one of the prescribed methods.

The Revenue argued that there was no necessity for technical services fees as the respondent-assessee was engaged only in trading activities and had not demonstrated the benefits of such services. The respondent-assessee, on the other hand, relied on several judicial decisions, including the Hon’ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd., which held that ALP adjustments cannot be made without adopting one of the mandatory prescribed methods.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the necessity of incurring expenditure on technical services is within the exclusive domain of the respondent-assessee. It also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Merck Ltd., which held that not adopting one of the prescribed methods to determine the ALP makes the entire TP study unsustainable in law.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, directing adjustments to the margins of the comparables for customs duty but upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the technical services fees. The decision emphasized the importance of following prescribed methods for determining ALP and appropriate adjustments to comparables' margins in TP cases.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates