Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, overturns flawed transfer pricing adjustment

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee. The disputed addition to the total income, related to the international transaction of receipt of sales commission, was deleted. The Tribunal found that the benchmarking conducted by the Transfer Pricing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel was flawed as the functions, risks, and assets involved in the marketing activities were not comparable to those for earning sales commission. Consequently, the adjustment made by the TPO was overturned, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of total income.
2. Adjustment to international transaction of receipt of sales commission.
3. Aggregation of transactions for benchmarking.
4. Arm's length price (ALP) determination for sales commission.
5. Functions performed and risks assumed in marketing activities.
6. Calculation of arm's length percentage of commission.
7. Application of the proviso to section 92C(2) regarding price variance.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment of Total Income:
The appellant challenged the assessment order where the total income was assessed at Rs. 11,69,71,550/- against the returned income of Rs. 11,42,29,221/-. The dispute primarily revolves around the addition of Rs. 28,54,085/- made to the international transaction of receipt of sales commission.

2. Adjustment to International Transaction of Receipt of Sales Commission:
The core issue was the adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and confirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) concerning the commission received by the assessee from its parent company, Hoganas AB Sweden. The TPO made an adjustment under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, leading to an addition of Rs. 28,24,085/-.

3. Aggregation of Transactions for Benchmarking:
The appellant argued that the transaction of receipt of sales commission and import of traded goods were closely linked and should be aggregated under the segment "Distribution Activity" as per rule 10A(d). However, the TPO and DRP did not accept this aggregation for benchmarking purposes.

4. Arm's Length Price (ALP) Determination for Sales Commission:
The TPO observed that the commission received by the assessee was not at a standard rate and calculated the internal rate of return attributable to the marketing functions of the assessee, which worked out to 4.44%. The TPO proposed this rate instead of the 1.49% worked out against the sales of Hoganas AB Sweden, leading to the disputed adjustment.

5. Functions Performed and Risks Assumed in Marketing Activities:
The TPO noted that the assessee undertakes similar marketing functions, assumes similar risks, and employs similar assets for its own marketing functions and for earning sales commission. The assessee contended that the functions and risks assumed while acting as an agent of Hoganas AB Sweden were insignificant compared to its manufacturing segment.

6. Calculation of Arm's Length Percentage of Commission:
The TPO calculated the net profit attributable to Selling and Distribution Activities (SADA) expenses at 4.44% and made an adjustment based on the difference between this rate and the 1.49% commission received. The assessee argued that the internal rate of return was incorrectly calculated and should be 1.46%.

7. Application of the Proviso to Section 92C(2) Regarding Price Variance:
The appellant contended that the benefit of the option available under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act, which allows a price variance of not more than 5% from the arm's length price, should be granted. However, the TPO and DRP did not grant this benefit.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the benchmarking adopted by the TPO and DRP was incorrect. It was noted that the functions performed, risks assumed, and assets employed by the assessee for its own marketing activities were not comparable to those for earning sales commission from the parent company. The Tribunal found that the minimal risk and no specific cost involved for acquiring the business by the parent company were not considered correctly. Therefore, the addition made by the TPO was deleted, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Order:
The appeal was allowed, and the addition made by the TPO on the directions of the DRP was deleted. The order was pronounced in the open court on 11/01/2013.

---