Tribunal allows appeal on comparables, sends MTM losses issue for fresh adjudication

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by directing the deletion of certain comparables in transfer pricing issues and restored the issue of Mark to Market (MTM) losses to the Assessing Officer/Dispute Resolution Panel for fresh adjudication. The grounds related to interest and penalty proceedings were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Addition to the returned income by recomputing the arm's length price (ALP) of international transactions.
2. Disallowance of Mark to Market (MTM) losses on foreign exchange forward contracts.
3. Charging of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 244A.
4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Addition to the Returned Income by Recomputation of ALP:

The core issue revolved around the addition of Rs. 57,46,70,024 to the returned income of the appellant by recomputing the ALP of international transactions under section 92 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contested the rejection of its set of comparable companies by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) based on additional/modified quantitative filters without valid reasoning. The appellant also argued against the inclusion of companies with high/supernormal margins and government-held enterprises in the final comparable set. The Tribunal noted that the appellant is a captive service provider offering engineering design and related services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention that Certification Engineers International Ltd. (CEIL) and NTPC Electrical Supply Company Ltd. (NTPCES) were not suitable comparables due to their functional dissimilarity, geographical market differences, and related party transactions (RPT). The Tribunal directed the deletion of these companies from the final set of comparables, thereby nullifying the need for any transfer pricing adjustment to the returned income of the appellant.

2. Disallowance of Mark to Market (MTM) Losses:

The appellant claimed a loss of Rs. 21,80,46,325 on re-measuring the foreign exchange forward contract as on the balance sheet date. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this loss, terming it notional and contingent. The appellant argued that the AO erred in relying on Instruction No. 3/2010 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which was applicable to assessees trading in forex derivatives and issued after the relevant financial year. The Tribunal noted that the appellant consistently followed a method of accounting for forward contracts based on a scientific method in the ordinary course of business. The Tribunal observed that the issue was covered in favor of the appellant by the Tribunal's order for AY 2008-09, where similar losses were allowed. However, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO/Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for fresh adjudication after factual analysis and examination of the transactions, following the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Woodward Governor (312 ITR 254).

3. Charging of Interest Under Sections 234B, 234C, and 244A:

The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue, as it was consequential to the primary issues discussed. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as it was consequential in nature.

4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c):

The Tribunal found this ground premature and dismissed it without detailed discussion.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal on transfer pricing issues by directing the deletion of certain comparables and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes on the issue of MTM losses by restoring it to the AO/DRP for fresh adjudication. The grounds related to interest and penalty proceedings were dismissed.

---