2010 (10) TMI 21 - SC - Income Tax

Related companies - section 40A(2) - application of provisions of transfer pricing to domestic operations - Held that - no interference is called for as the entire exercise is a revenue neutral exercise - In the case of domestic transactions the under-invoicing of sales and over-invoicing of expenses ordinarily will be revenue neutral in nature except in two circumstances - certain provisions of the Act like Section 40A(2) and Section 80IA(10) need to be amended empowering the Assessing Officer to make adjustments to the income declared by the assessee having regard to the fair market value of the transactions between the related parties. - CBDT also asked to consider the issue

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Determination of related companies under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allocation of cross-charges by the assessee and its correctness.
3. Extension of Transfer Pricing Regulations to domestic transactions.
4. Amendment of provisions like Section 40A(2) and Section 80IA(10) for adjustments based on fair market value.
5. Compulsory maintenance of documents and audit reports for domestic transactions between related parties.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case was to determine whether the assessee-Company and its service provider were related companies under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Authorities below had found that the two companies were not related under this section. The Supreme Court, after examining the material for the Assessment Year 2001-2002, decided that no interference was warranted as the exercise was revenue neutral. The special leave petition filed by the Department was dismissed, with a directive for Authorities to assess any potential loss of revenue in other assessment years.

2. The secondary issue involved the correctness of the allocation of cross-charges by the assessee. The Court did not find it necessary to intervene in this matter for the Assessment Year 2001-2002, as it was considered a revenue neutral exercise. However, the Authorities were directed to examine potential revenue loss in other assessment years and act accordingly.

3. A broader issue raised in the judgment was whether Transfer Pricing Regulations should be extended to domestic transactions. The Court highlighted the complexities that arise in cases of under-invoicing and over-invoicing in domestic transactions between related parties. It suggested that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) should consider amending the Act to apply Transfer Pricing Regulations to such transactions.

4. To address the challenges in domestic transactions, the Court recommended amending provisions like Section 40A(2) and Section 80IA(10) to empower Assessing Officers to make adjustments based on the fair market value of transactions between related parties. It proposed that Assessing Officers should be allowed to apply generally accepted methods for determining arm's length prices, including those specified in Transfer Pricing Regulations.

5. The judgment also emphasized the importance of maintaining relevant documents and conducting transfer pricing audits for domestic transactions between related entities. It suggested that taxpayers should be required to maintain proper books of accounts and obtain audit reports from Chartered Accountants to reflect transactions at arm's length prices. The Court recommended that the Ministry of Finance consider amending the law to reduce litigation in such complex matters.

Overall, the judgment addressed key issues related to related companies, cross-charges allocation, Transfer Pricing Regulations, amendments to tax provisions, and the maintenance of documents for domestic transactions between related parties, providing detailed insights and recommendations for improving tax compliance and reducing disputes.