2018 (7) TMI 1847 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Upholds Decision on Transfer Pricing Rules and Warranty Costs

The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Versus M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd.

The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Appellants-Revenue as no substantial question of law arose in the case. The decision focused on the ... Transfer Pricing analysis - combined transaction approach - treatment of the provision for warranty costs as non-operating expenditure for the purpose of determining arm’s length price - in these type of cases, unless an ex-facie perversity in the findings of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is established by the appellant, the appeal at the instance of an assessee or the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Act is not maintainable. Issues:1. Interpretation of Transfer Pricing rules and methods.2. Treatment of warranty costs as non-operating expenditure.Analysis:1. The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Transfer Pricing rules and methods. The Appellants-Revenue raised questions regarding the correctness of the Combined Transaction Approach for Transfer Pricing analysis. The Tribunal considered the inter-linkage between trading and manufacturing activities of the assessee, emphasizing that combining both segments was advisable in this specific case. The Tribunal found that segregating the trading and manufacturing segments would not serve any meaningful purpose, especially when the activities were closely inter-linked. The Tribunal relied on OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and directed the Assessing Officer to compute the Arm's Length Price at the entity/enterprise level by combining both segments. This decision was deemed case-specific and not a general principle.2. Another issue addressed was the treatment of warranty costs as non-operating expenditure for determining the arm's length price. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and concluded that warranty costs were part of operative expenditure. However, the Tribunal found that warranty costs were triggered as a result of manufacturing activities, including warranty commitments. Therefore, the Tribunal decided that warranty costs should not be isolated from the sale of manufactured vehicles. This decision was supported by the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and the nature of activities carried out by the assessee and comparable companies.3. In a related judgment, the Court clarified that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act should raise substantial questions of law related to crucial matters such as Double Taxation Avoidance Treaties, BEPS, and other significant issues. The Court emphasized that mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings on comparables or filters for arriving at the correct list of comparables does not constitute a substantial question of law. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals as they did not meet the requirements of Section 260-A and lacked merit.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the Appellants-Revenue, as no substantial question of law arose in the case. The judgment provided detailed analysis on Transfer Pricing methods and the treatment of warranty costs, emphasizing the specific circumstances of the case and the inter-linkage between trading and manufacturing activities.