Transfer pricing matter sent back for fresh proceedings; transaction price deemed ALP if variation =5%

ITAT, CHANDIGARH - AT remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer, holding that where the variation between the ALP so determined and the actual international transaction price does not exceed 5% of the latter, the actual price shall be deemed the ALP. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and directed fresh proceedings to permit the assessee to place relevant facts, preferring substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's challenge to exclusion of a particular comparable (Immercus), finding material functional, turnover and net-worth differences, and held that mere losses do not automatically disqualify a comparable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) under section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Exclusion of Imercius Technologies India Pvt Ltd from the list of comparables.
3. Inclusion of Datamatics Technologies Ltd as a comparable.
4. Application of the 5% margin benefit under section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP):
The primary issue in dispute pertains to the determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) under section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2004-05. The assessee, an Indian subsidiary of a Switzerland-based company, provided various technical services to its parent company and received a fee based on associated costs plus a markup. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) employed the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) for computing the ALP but excluded one of the comparables, M/s Imercius Technologies India Pvt Ltd, due to it being a continuous loss-making company and having unreliable financial statements.

2. Exclusion of Imercius Technologies India Pvt Ltd:
The TPO and the CIT(A) excluded Imercius Technologies India Pvt Ltd from the list of comparables on several grounds: it was a start-up company with negative net worth, its turnover was significantly lower than that of the assessee, and it was engaged in telemarketing services, which were deemed not comparable to the technical support services provided by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld this exclusion, noting that the functional areas of the assessee and Imercius were inherently different, and the turnover and net worth disparities justified the exclusion.

3. Inclusion of Datamatics Technologies Ltd:
The assessee raised an additional ground of appeal, contending that Datamatics Technologies Ltd should be excluded from the comparables due to its significant transactions with associated enterprises and an arithmetical error in computing its profit ratio. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground, noting that the taxpayer is not estopped from pointing out mistakes in the assessment. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication, emphasizing the need for a fair determination of the ALP considering all relevant details.

4. Application of the 5% Margin Benefit:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of the 5% margin benefit under section 92C(2) needed reconsideration in light of the amendment to the proviso effective from 1st October 2009. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for adjudication de novo, allowing the assessee to raise all relevant contentions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Imercius Technologies India Pvt Ltd from the list of comparables but remitted the matter regarding the inclusion of Datamatics Technologies Ltd to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to re-evaluate the ALP determination in accordance with the law and the Tribunal's observations.

---