Tribunal excludes unique gov-backed company in transfer pricing case, upholds TNMM application

The Tribunal upheld the decision to exclude "Rites Limited" as a comparable due to its unique government-backed nature, affirming that it was not suitable for benchmarking against the assessee. The correct application of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) without including extraordinary expenses showed that the assessee's transactions were at arm's length. The Tribunal also supported the use of internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) data alongside TNMM, emphasizing the importance of selecting the appropriate profit level indicator (PLI). As a result, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Justification for excluding "Rites Limited" as a comparable.
2. Methodology for determining the arm's length price.
3. Inclusion of extraordinary expenses in the operating expenses.
4. Application of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method.
5. Selection of profit level indicator (PLI).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification for excluding "Rites Limited" as a comparable:
The primary contention from the Revenue was that the CIT(A) erred in excluding "Rites Limited" as a comparable. The CIT(A) observed that "Rites Limited" is a Government of India enterprise, engaged in multi-disciplinary consultancy in the field of transportation, infrastructure, and related technologies. It was noted that Rites Limited's contracts, often with foreign governments, had implicit guarantees from the Indian government, making its functional and risk profile significantly different from the assessee. Thus, the CIT(A) concluded that Rites Limited's operations were not comparable to the assessee's, which primarily provided engineering consultancy services to its AE. The Tribunal upheld this view, agreeing that the nature of Rites Limited's activities and its government backing made it an unsuitable comparable.

2. Methodology for determining the arm's length price:
The assessee used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with the berry ratio as the profit level indicator (PLI) to benchmark its international transactions. The TPO, however, included Rites Limited as a comparable, which led to a higher average operating profit margin of 13.88% compared to the assessee's 5%. The CIT(A) found that the TPO's inclusion of Rites Limited skewed the results and that the correct application of the TNMM, excluding extraordinary expenses, showed that the assessee's transactions were within the arm's length range.

3. Inclusion of extraordinary expenses in the operating expenses:
The CIT(A) noted that extraordinary expenses should not be included in the operating expenses as they are one-time expenditures that distort the profitability rate. The CIT(A) recalculated the operating margin after excluding these expenses, which resulted in a net operating margin of 9.41%, within the safe harbour limit. The Tribunal agreed with this adjustment, emphasizing that the correct determination of operating costs is crucial for accurate benchmarking.

4. Application of TNMM and CUP method:
The assessee initially used the TNMM but also provided internal CUP data to support its pricing. The TPO and AO rejected this additional method, arguing that the assessee could not change its benchmarking method. However, the CIT(A) accepted the internal CUP data, noting that the average hourly rate charged to third parties was lower than that charged to the AE, indicating that the transactions were at arm's length. The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s view, stating that the Income Tax Act does not preclude the use of multiple methods for benchmarking.

5. Selection of profit level indicator (PLI):
The assessee used the berry ratio (operating revenue to operating expenses) as the PLI. The TPO argued that this was not in accordance with Rule 10B, which requires the PLI to be with reference to cost or sales of assets. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the berry ratio was appropriate in this case, especially after adjusting for extraordinary expenses, which brought the operating profit margin to 10.40%, higher than the comparables' average.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, concluding that the exclusion of Rites Limited as a comparable was justified, the correct methodology and PLI were applied, and the international transactions of the assessee were at arm's length. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

---