Aggregated benchmarking, non-royalty service payments, and warranty provisions were upheld as deductible in transfer pricing analysis.

Closely linked long-term project transactions may be benchmarked on an aggregated basis where project-wise comparison distorts margins, so the transfer pricing adjustment on contract revenue was deleted. Separate technical service payments under collaboration agreements were not covered by royalty clauses, so an arm's length price of nil was unsustainable and the adjustment was deleted. Technical drawings and designs purchased as copyrighted articles on a principal-to-principal basis did not amount to royalty or trigger tax deduction at source, so the disallowance was removed. A warranty provision supported by past experience and consistent accounting practice was treated as an ascertained liability and allowed as a deduction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether transfer pricing adjustment on contract revenue from projects was justified when the assessee benchmarked the international transactions on an aggregated basis using internal comparables; (ii) Whether the payment for technical services was covered by the royalty agreements so as to justify an arm's length price of nil; (iii) Whether disallowance of payment for technical drawings and designs as royalty requiring tax deduction at source was sustainable; (iv) Whether provision for warranty was an allowable deduction or a contingent liability.

Issue (i): Whether transfer pricing adjustment on contract revenue from projects was justified when the assessee benchmarked the international transactions on an aggregated basis using internal comparables?

Analysis: The transactions were long-term and closely linked project contracts. The assessee followed the Cost Plus Method with gross profit margin based on internal comparables and showed that margins on related party and unrelated party projects were broadly comparable. Individual project-wise comparison with aggregate non-AE margins was found to be distorted because project margins varied with life cycle, risk, location, bidding conditions, and other functional differences. The aggregated approach was held to be consistent with the nature of the transactions and the OECD guidance on closely linked transactions.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment on contract revenue from projects was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payment for technical services was covered by the royalty agreements so as to justify an arm's length price of nil?

Analysis: The technical collaboration agreements separately dealt with training of personnel, deputation of licensor's personnel, transmission of technical information, and manufacturing and selling rights. The payments under the disputed heads were held not to be part of the royalty consideration. The TPO's approach of applying CUP without comparables and questioning commercial expediency was rejected. The payments were treated as distinct technical service charges outside the royalty clauses of the agreements.

Conclusion: The adjustment determining the arm's length price at nil was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether disallowance of payment for technical drawings and designs as royalty requiring tax deduction at source was sustainable?

Analysis: The drawings and designs were purchased on a principal-to-principal basis as copyrighted articles, with copyright and technical know-how retained by the foreign supplier. The materials were imported and treated as goods, and the assessee acquired only the right to use the drawings for specified purposes. The transaction was held not to amount to a transfer of copyright or royalty and, therefore, no obligation to deduct tax at source arose.

Conclusion: The disallowance under the tax deduction provisions was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether provision for warranty was an allowable deduction or a contingent liability?

Analysis: The warranty obligation arose from the sale contracts and was supported by past experience, project-wise estimation, and consistent accounting treatment. The provision was based on a reasonable method and had been accepted in earlier years on identical facts. It was treated as an ascertained liability rather than a contingent liability.

Conclusion: The warranty provision was allowed as a deduction and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the substantive transfer pricing and deduction issues, while the Revenue's appeals were rejected. The penalty ground was not entertained as premature and the TDS credit issue was left to verification by the Assessing Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Closely linked long-term project transactions may be benchmarked on an aggregated basis where project-wise comparison gives distorted results, and payments for separately identifiable services or copyrighted articles are not to be treated as royalty merely because they relate to technical collaboration or design inputs.

---