2010 (5) TMI 530 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms CIT(A) decision on arm's length transactions & transfer pricing study, dismissing Revenue's appeal.

DCIT Versus Indo American Jewellery Ltd.

DCIT Versus Indo American Jewellery Ltd. - [2010] 41 SOT 1 (MUM.) , [2012] 15 ITR 158 Issues Involved:1. Appropriateness of the allocation keys used by the assessee for splitting expenses.2. Validity of the comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).3. Justification of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) determined by the assessee.4. Compliance with Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.5. Burden of proof in establishing ALP.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Appropriateness of Allocation Keys:The TPO rejected the split financials provided by the assessee on the grounds that the allocation keys used, such as sales for manufacturing expenses like employees' remuneration and rent, were inappropriate. The TPO argued that the ideal allocation keys should have been the number of employees, space utilized, etc. Consequently, the TPO considered the entity-level profitability of the assessee for benchmarking purposes.2. Validity of Comparables Selected by TPO:The TPO conducted a fresh search for comparables and selected companies engaged in similar business activities. The assessee contested that some of the selected companies were not comparable due to differences in turnover and location advantages, such as being situated in Seepz, which provided various benefits. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, noting that the TPO did not consider the functional, asset, and risk (FAR) profile of the comparables and failed to reject the transfer pricing study submitted by the assessee.3. Justification of ALP Determined by Assessee:The assessee used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and provided a detailed transfer pricing study. The TPO's adjustment was based on an average operating profit margin of 7.25% from the selected comparables. However, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee's operating profit margin of 3.56% on sales was higher than the industry margin of 3.27%, indicating that the transactions were at arm's length. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's TP study and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.4. Compliance with Rule 10B:The assessee demonstrated compliance with Rule 10B(2)(a), 10B(2)(b), 10B(2)(c), and 10B(2)(d) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal noted that the assessee's operating profit margins were in line with the margins of the comparables used by the assessee, and the TPO did not provide sufficient reasons to reject the assessee's comparables.5. Burden of Proof in Establishing ALP:The CIT(A) emphasized that the initial onus to establish that the international transaction was within the ALP lies with the assessee, which the assessee had discharged by filing a detailed transfer pricing study. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the Revenue authorities failed to demonstrate any fallacies in the application of the standard method used by the assessee.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the TPO and the Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient justification for rejecting the assessee's transfer pricing study. The Tribunal found that the assessee's transactions with its AEs were at arm's length, and the external comparables selected by the assessee were appropriate. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.