Chapter X requires ALP determination for Indian cross-border deals; s.133(6)/92CA(7) evidence usable; TNMM allows adjusted internal comparable

ITAT AHMEDABAD held largely for revenue: Chapter X focuses on determining ALP for Indian cross-border transactions regardless of AE's foreign losses; the assessee's external comparables were rejected for product dissimilarity and alleged cherry-picking, placing on TPO the duty to select closest public comparables (a single valid comparable may suffice). Use of information gathered under s.133(6)/92CA(7) was permissible once disclosed to the assessee. However, the tribunal accepted that an internal comparable under TNMM can be considered after adjustments where domestic and export transactions by the same taxpayer are sufficiently similar.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's contention regarding the failure to issue a show-cause notice.
2. Whether there was an intention to shift profits outside India.
3. Whether the rejection of the assessee's economic analysis and comparable companies was valid.
4. Whether the use of data not in the public domain for benchmarking was appropriate.
5. Whether the selection of only one comparable company (BIPL) was justified.
6. Whether the selection of BIPL as a comparable company was erroneous.
7. Whether the risk adjustment for differences in risk profiles was necessary.
8. Whether the transfer pricing addition resulted in discrimination under the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
9. Whether the benefit of the +/- 5% range should be allowed.
10. Whether the exclusion of abnormal costs while determining the operating profit was correct.
11. Whether the determination of the Arms Length Price (ALP) by taking the value of international transactions was correct.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Failure to Issue Show-Cause Notice:
The assessee contended that the AO failed to issue a show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, noting that no specific issue was raised, and these were general grounds.

2. Intention to Shift Profits:
The assessee argued that there was no intention to shift profits outside India as the Associated Enterprise (A.E.) incurred losses. The Tribunal held that Chapter X of the IT Act is devoted to determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for cross-border transactions and does not consider the foreign A.E.'s losses. This ground was dismissed.

3. Rejection of Economic Analysis and Comparable Companies:
The assessee selected the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and chose 12 comparables for benchmarking. The Tribunal found that the TPO rightly rejected the comparables because the products were not identical. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of product similarity over functional similarity and upheld the TPO's rejection of the assessee's economic analysis.

4. Use of Data Not in Public Domain:
The TPO used data from Bisazza India Pvt. Ltd. (BIPL), a private company, for benchmarking. The Tribunal noted that the TPO provided the assessee with an opportunity to inspect BIPL's financial data. The Tribunal held that the use of such data was permissible as long as it was shared with the assessee, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.

5. Selection of Only One Comparable Company (BIPL):
The Tribunal addressed the objection that selecting only one comparable (BIPL) was arbitrary. It cited precedents allowing the use of a single comparable for TNMM and upheld the TPO's selection of BIPL, finding no fault in the TPO's approach.

6. Selection of BIPL as a Comparable Company:
The assessee argued that BIPL had controlled transactions and should not be used as a comparable. The Tribunal acknowledged the difficulty in finding exact comparables and suggested applying a filter to account for controlled transactions. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-examination.

7. Risk Adjustment:
The Tribunal noted that adjustments for differences in risk profiles were necessary. It directed the AO to re-examine the matter, considering the credit risk and marketing activities undertaken by BIPL.

8. Transfer Pricing Addition and DTAA Discrimination:
The assessee claimed that the transfer pricing addition resulted in discrimination under the DTAA. The Tribunal deferred adjudication on this ground, as the matter was remanded to the AO for re-examination.

9. Benefit of +/- 5% Range:
The Tribunal held that this ground became consequential, as the ALP determination was yet to be finalized. It deferred the application of the +/- 5% range until the ALP was determined.

10. Exclusion of Abnormal Costs:
The CIT(A) excluded abnormal costs incurred by the assessee while determining the operating profit. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine this aspect along with other factors.

11. Determination of ALP:
The CIT(A) directed the AO to compute the transfer pricing adjustment only for the value of international transactions. The Tribunal upheld this direction, finding no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s approach.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, remanding several issues to the AO for re-examination, including the selection of comparables, application of risk adjustments, and determination of the ALP. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of product similarity in transfer pricing analysis and upheld the use of data not in the public domain, provided it was shared with the assessee.

---