2012 (12) TMI 71 - AT - Income Tax

Arm's Length Price Must Reflect Only Associated Enterprise Transactions Under Rule 10B, Not Entire Turnover

Thyssen Krupp Industries India (P.) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 3 (3), Mumbai

Thyssen Krupp Industries India (P.) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 3 (3), Mumbai - TMI 1. Issues Presented and Considered Whether transfer pricing (TP) adjustment on import of spares and equipment, determined at entity level on entire turnover, is justified or should be restricted only to international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs). Whether segmental data provided by the assessee should be considered for TP analysis. Whether TP adjustments on payments for royalty, project engineering, and manufacturing drawing fees, determined at nil ALP, are justified. Whether double adjustments were made on royalty/project engineering fees and liquidated damages. Whether TP adjustment on payment of liquidated damages reimbursed to AE is justified. Whether notional interest adjustment on delayed payments from AE is justified. Whether the assessee is entitled to the 5% standard deduction under Section 92C(2) proviso. Whether the reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA was valid. 2. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Appropriateness of TP Adjustment on Import of Spares and Equipment at Entity Level Legal Framework and Precedents: Transfer Pricing provisions mandate determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) only for international transactions with AEs. The proviso to Section 92C(2) allows a standard range of +/-5% for ALP determination. Multiple coordinate bench decisions hold that TP adjustments must be restricted to international transactions and cannot be applied on entire turnover. Court's Reasoning: The TPO applied the TNMM method at entity level considering entire turnover (Rs. 883.6 crores) and operating expenses (Rs. 837.7 crores), resulting in a proposed adjustment of Rs. 9.67 crores. The assessee's transactions with AEs constitute less than 5% of total turnover. Applying adjustment on entire turnover inflates profit and violates the statutory mandate. Evidence and Findings: Assessee's operating profit margin was 5.19%, comparables' mean margin was 6.29%. Payments to AEs were Rs. 35.5 crores (less than 5% of turnover). Segmental data and internal cost apportionment were provided but rejected by DRP. Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that adjustment must be restricted to AE transactions only. Applying ALP on entire turnover results in impermissible uplift of profits on non-AE transactions. The correct approach is to apportion operating expenses and profits between AE and non-AE transactions and apply the ALP only to the AE portion. Competing Arguments: Revenue argued that entity level adjustment is justified and segmental data is unreliable. Assessee contended that segmental data and FAR analysis support restriction to AE transactions. Conclusion: TP adjustment of Rs. 9.67 crores on entire turnover is not justified and must be cancelled. ALP is within the +/-5% range for AE transactions; hence, no adjustment is warranted. Issue 2: Consideration of Segmental Data in TP Analysis Legal Framework: Segmental data is relevant for benchmarking and FAR analysis but must be reliable and complete. Court's Reasoning: Segmental data submitted did not include royalty payments at 5% of sales, impacting cost and profit margin calculations. The DRP rejected segmental data due to incomplete verification and non-standard format. Evidence: Audited accounts and segmental data were furnished; however, key components like royalty payments were excluded. Application: Incomplete segmental data cannot be relied upon for TP adjustments. Conclusion: Segmental data was not accepted for TP benchmarking in this case. Issue 3: TP Adjustments on Royalty and Project Engineering Fees Determined at Nil ALP Legal Framework and Precedents: Under TP provisions and Rule 10B, ALP must be determined by authorized methods. Disallowance of entire expenditure on grounds of business prudence or losses is impermissible. The Delhi High Court in EKL Appliances held that expenditure wholly and exclusively for business purpose cannot be disallowed merely because it is unremunerative or results in losses. Court's Reasoning: Assessee had a collaboration agreement approved by FIPB for payment of 2% contract value and 5% royalty. No adjustments were made in earlier years. TPO and DRP disallowed entire payments by fixing ALP at nil without benchmarking with comparables. Evidence: Collaboration agreement dated 23.07.1996, FIPB approval, prior years' acceptance of payments, and no comparable benchmarking by TPO. Application: TPO's approach of setting ALP at nil is contrary to law and OECD guidelines. The expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business and cannot be disallowed on extraneous grounds. Competing Arguments: Revenue contended that ALP at nil is justified due to losses and imprudence. Assessee relied on judicial precedents and agreement approvals. Conclusion: TP adjustment disallowing royalty and project engineering fees is not sustainable and is deleted. Issue 4: Double Adjustment on Royalty and Liquidated Damages Court's Reasoning: The contention that once entity level adjustment is made, item-wise adjustments cannot be made has merit but requires examination in appropriate cases. Conclusion: No definitive finding made; however, on facts and law, individual adjustments on royalty and liquidated damages are not required. Issue 5: TP Adjustment on Liquidated Damages Paid to AE Legal Framework: Payments made as reimbursement of liquidated damages deducted by third party from AE are business decisions and governed by Section 37(1) for allowability. Court's Reasoning: Delay in supply caused liquidated damages recovered by third party (NLC) from AE (KF). Assessee reimbursed exact amount deducted. TPO fixed ALP at nil and disallowed entire amount. Evidence: Agreements between NLC and KF, delay attributed to assessee, payment records, and settlement deed. Application: Payment was necessary business decision; reimbursement of exact amount deducted cannot be disallowed under TP provisions. TP provisions do not govern business decisions on liability for liquidated damages. Conclusion: TP adjustment disallowing liquidated damages payment is not justified and deleted. Issue 6: Notional Interest Adjustment on Delayed Payment Court's Reasoning: Small amount of Rs. 32,359 added as notional interest on delayed payment from AE. Issue was not pressed by assessee. Conclusion: Addition confirmed without detailed adjudication. Issue 7: Entitlement to 5% Standard Deduction under Section 92C(2) Proviso Court's Reasoning: Proviso allows a standard range of +/-5% for ALP determination. Since ALP on AE transactions falls within this range, no adjustment is needed. Conclusion: Assessee entitled to benefit of 5% standard deduction; no adjustment required. Issue 8: Validity of Reference to TPO under Section 92CA Court's Reasoning: Issue raised but not adjudicated as it did not require determination in present facts. Conclusion: No adjudication required. Additional Observations: The Court emphasized that TP adjustments must be consistent with statutory provisions and cannot extend to non-international transactions. OECD guidelines and judicial precedents emphasize that business expenditures wholly and exclusively for business cannot be disallowed merely due to losses or imprudence. Segmental data must be complete and verified to be considered in TP benchmarking. Adjustments must be made on correct apportionment of costs and profits between AE and non-AE transactions.