TNMM with OP/TC affirmed; several comparables excluded, others ordered reconsidered; interest-on-receivables adjustment rejected and assessee's ground allowed, appeal disposed

ITAT DELHI - AT held that TNMM with OP/TC was the appropriate method but directed AO/TPO to exclude several proposed comparables (Kitco, TCE, IBI Chematur, TCS E-Serve, Accentia, E4e, Mott Macdonald) and to include or reconsider others (Accuspeed, Development Consultants, M N Dastur, Omega Healthcare, Tech Process) where DRP/AO had failed to justify rejection or had not examined records. The Tribunal also rejected a separate interest-on-receivables adjustment given the assessee was debt-free. Ground no. 3 of the assessee's appeal was allowed and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Rejection of comparable companies adopted by the appellant in its transfer pricing documentation.
2. Inclusion of companies functionally not comparable to the appellant.
3. Inclusion of companies with high/supernormal margins as comparables.
4. Incorrect computation of operating margins of certain comparables.
5. Denial of economic adjustments due to differences in risk profile.
6. Selection of current year data for comparability.
7. Imputation of interest on receivables from associated enterprises (AEs).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Comparable Companies Adopted by the Appellant:

The appellant argued that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in rejecting certain comparable companies based on additional/modified quantitative filters without valid reasoning. The Tribunal examined the comparables considered by the TPO and DRP and found that some companies like Kitco Limited, TCE Consulting Engineers Ltd., and IBI Chematur Ltd. were not appropriate comparables due to their involvement in activities beyond engineering design and their association with government projects, which impacted their profit margins. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of these companies.

2. Inclusion of Companies Functionally Not Comparable:

The Tribunal found that companies included by the TPO, such as TCE Consulting Engineers Ltd. and IBI Chematur Ltd., were involved in diversified activities that extended beyond engineering design, making them functionally different from the appellant. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of these companies.

3. Inclusion of Companies with High/Supernormal Margins:

The appellant contended that the TPO included companies with high/supernormal margins as comparables. The Tribunal noted that companies like TCS E-Serve International Ltd. and TCS E-Serve Ltd. possessed intellectual property rights and used the Tata brand, which significantly increased their operating profits. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of these companies due to their extraordinary circumstances.

4. Incorrect Computation of Operating Margins:

The Tribunal did not specifically address the incorrect computation of operating margins but focused on the functional comparability and inclusion/exclusion of certain companies based on their activities and financial data.

5. Denial of Economic Adjustments Due to Differences in Risk Profile:

The appellant argued that the TPO denied the benefit of economic adjustments due to differences in risk profiles. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue but emphasized the importance of functional comparability in selecting appropriate comparables.

6. Selection of Current Year Data for Comparability:

The appellant contended that the TPO selected current year data for comparability despite the unavailability of complete data at the time of preparing the Transfer Pricing Documentation. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue but focused on the appropriateness of the comparables selected by the TPO and DRP.

7. Imputation of Interest on Receivables from AEs:

The TPO observed that the payment received from the AE was not as per the terms of the service agreement and treated the delayed payments as a loan facility advanced to the AE. The TPO charged 14.88% interest for the delayed period beyond 30 days. The Tribunal, relying on the judgment of Indo American Jewellery and Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., held that no separate adjustment for interest on receivables was warranted as the appellant was a debt-free company and the interest aspect was embedded in the sale price. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's ground on this issue.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables due to their functional differences and extraordinary circumstances. It also held that no separate adjustment for interest on receivables was warranted. The appellant's appeal was disposed of accordingly. The order was pronounced in the open court on 21.12.2015.

---