TPO order set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication under s.92E; assessee allowed to submit new TP study

ITAT, MUMBAI - AT set aside the TPO's order and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, finding the TPO did not apply TNMM as required and the assessee failed to comply with Chapter X obligations. The tribunal permitted the assessee to submit a fresh transfer pricing study or choose an appropriate prescribed method and directed the AO and TPO to re-examine the matter de novo under s.92E after giving opportunity. Any ALP adjustments must be confined to international transactions only and not applied to domestic turnover.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions under transfer pricing regulations.
2. Computation of relief under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
3. Classification of interest income as 'business income' or 'income from other sources.'

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for International Transactions:

The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the import, manufacture, and export of diamonds, was scrutinized for its international transactions with associated enterprises. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) determined the ALP using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) despite the assessee's contention that none of the prescribed methods were applicable. The TPO compared the assessee's profit margins with those of other comparable companies and made adjustments based on operational profit ratios. The First Appellate Authority excluded certain comparables, leading to a revised profit margin within the permissible range, thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1.69 crores made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the necessity of using one of the prescribed methods under Chapter-X of the Income Tax Act for determining ALP. However, it found fault with the TPO's application of TNMM at the enterprise level instead of transaction level. The Tribunal set aside the TPO's order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish a new transfer pricing study report.

2. Computation of Relief under Section 80HHC:

The issue involved the treatment of foreign exchange rate difference gains from earlier years. The First Appellate Authority included these gains as part of the export turnover for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC. The Revenue contested this inclusion, arguing that the gains did not form part of the export turnover for the assessment year in question. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Prakash Shah, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

3. Classification of Interest Income:

The assessee argued that interest income from bank deposits kept as margin money should be classified as 'business income.' The First Appellate Authority dismissed this claim, categorizing it as 'income from other sources.' The Tribunal, referencing the jurisdictional High Court decisions in Indo Swiss Jewels Ltd. and Lok Holdings, held that such interest income should indeed be assessed as 'business income.' However, it also noted that 90% of the gross interest must be excluded while computing relief under Section 80HHC, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT-III Vs. Asian Star Co. Ltd.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It emphasized the mandatory application of prescribed methods for determining ALP and the correct classification of interest income, while also addressing the computation of relief under Section 80HHC in line with prevailing legal precedents.

---