Transfer pricing tolerance margin and related adjustments clarified; 5% benefit only if variation within margin, TDS on software remanded.

The article addresses entitlement to the proviso tolerance margin in transfer pricing, holding that the 5% safe-harbour applies only when variation between actual price and ALP falls within that margin; if variation exceeds it, no partial benefit is allowed and ALP under Section 92C(1) stands as computed. It rejects unsupported comparables and unexplained working-capital adjustments, requiring demonstrable reasons and empirical data for negative working capital or import-content adjustments. It confirms income accrues only on raising invoices, deleting an addition where legal claim arose later. It remits the question of TDS applicability on software purchases for fresh adjudication to determine right-to-use versus shrink-wrapped treatment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer/DRP were justified in rejecting assessee's TP study, selecting non-contemporaneous comparables and making ALP adjustment on total turnover instead of restricting it to turnover proportionate to purchases from the associate enterprise; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to the +5% tolerance (safe harbour) under proviso to Section 92C(2); (iii) Whether Customs valuation can be treated as comparable for transfer pricing; (iv) Whether adjustment for working capital, customs duty and start-up related adjustments under Rule 10B ought to have been allowed; (v) Whether income of Rs. 5.34 crores invoiced in succeeding year accrued in the relevant previous year; (vi) Whether payments for acquisition of software required deduction of tax at source under Sections 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia).

Issue (i): Whether the ALP adjustment made by TPO/DRP was valid in view of comparables selection, contemporaneous data and application of the PLI to total turnover instead of proportionate AE turnover.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the search and filters used by assessee and TPO, contemporaneity of data, and the composition of the comparables. It found that while most challenges to TPO selection and use of single-year margins were not sustainable, three of the fourteen comparables selected by the TPO had substantial related-party transactions in excess of 25% and therefore should have been excluded. The Tribunal also considered precedents recognizing that ALP adjustments under TNMM should, where appropriate, be applied only to the turnover proportionate to the international/AE purchases rather than to total turnover, and found the factual percentage of AE purchases (27%) required restriction of the adjustment to proportionate turnover.

Conclusion: Partly in favour of the assessee - three comparables having controlled transactions are to be excluded and the ALP adjustment must be reworked and restricted to the turnover proportionate to purchases from the associate enterprise.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee is entitled to +5% tolerance under proviso to Section 92C(2).

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the law, including the Special Bench decision and the retrospective amendment to the proviso by Finance Act, 2012, and concluded that the tolerance margin operates only where the transaction price is within the specified tolerance; if variation exceeds the tolerance, no benefit of the tolerance is available.

Conclusion: In favour of Revenue - assessee is not entitled to the +5% tolerance where variation exceeds the tolerance margin.

Issue (iii): Whether Customs valuation can be adopted as a comparable basis for ALP under transfer pricing rules.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the distinct objectives, rules and methodologies of Customs valuation and transfer pricing. It noted that Customs authority valuation addresses undervaluation for customs duty, whereas transfer pricing assesses arm's length from commercial transactions; CBDT and Customs operate under different statutory schemes and Customs valuation rules are not automatically comparable for transfer pricing.

Conclusion: In favour of Revenue - Customs valuation is not a proper substitute for transfer pricing comparability.

Issue (iv): Whether adjustments for working capital, customs duty and start-up expenses under Rule 10B should have been allowed.

Analysis: Tribunal reviewed the assessee's working capital adjustment methodology and the evidence. It found that while adjustments of these types are permissible in principle under Rule 10B if the impact is demonstrated, the assessee failed to demonstrate the quantumary and causal effect of negative working capital, customs duty and start-up expenses on margins except for the established idle-capacity concession already allowed by DRP. No empirical basis was supplied for the 5% figure sought.

Conclusion: In favour of Revenue - adjustments not allowed for lack of demonstrated impact; claim for idle-capacity was accepted by DRP and no further adjustment is warranted.

Issue (v): Whether Rs. 5.34 crores invoiced on 30th June 2007 accrued in the relevant previous year ending 31.3.2007.

Analysis: Tribunal applied accrual principles and authority on point of accrual; it held that legal claim accrues on raising of invoice and that without invoice the legal right to claim did not vest in the relevant previous year.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee - addition of Rs. 5.34 crores is deleted as the income accrued only on invoice date (30.6.2007) and relates to subsequent year.

Issue (vi): Whether the payments for acquisition of software required deduction of tax at source under Sections 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) (i.e., whether payments are 'royalty' or purchase of shrink-wrapped software).

Analysis: The Tribunal found that authorities below did not adequately examine whether the payments were for shrink-wrapped packaged software (outright purchase) or for rights/royalty attracting TDS. It noted differing judicial elucidations and the effect of explanatory amendments and concluded the issue requires fresh adjudication with proper consideration of the character of the payments and applicable explanations to Section 9.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee for statistical purposes - the matter is set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on TDS applicability.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed - the transfer pricing adjustment is to be reworked after excluding three comparables with controlled transactions and restricting the ALP adjustment to the proportionate turnover attributable to AE purchases; the addition of Rs. 5.34 crores is deleted; the TDS/software payment issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The other transfer pricing and adjustment claims are dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where ALP adjustments under TNMM concern only a portion of transactions attributable to an associate enterprise, the adjustment must be applied proportionately to the turnover attributable to those AE transactions; comparables with substantial related-party transactions must be excluded; the +5% tolerance under proviso to Section 92C(2) applies only when the actual transaction price falls within the specified tolerance band.

---