TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Taxpayer's appeal allowed for statistical purposes, remanded to TPO for reconsideration. Tribunal emphasizes consistency in transfer pricing decisions.</h1> <h3>Nissin Brake India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle 3, Gurgaon</h3> Nissin Brake India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle 3, Gurgaon - TMI Issues Involved:1. Assessment of total income.2. Transfer pricing adjustment for royalty and product development service fees.3. Inclusion of inappropriate comparables.4. Rejection of functionally comparable companies.5. Rejection of capacity utilization adjustment.6. Determination of benefits from royalty and service fees.7. Initiation of penalty proceedings.8. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C.Detailed Analysis:GROUND NO.1:The first ground is general in nature and does not require any adjudication.GROUND NO.2 & 6:The taxpayer paid Rs. 8,14,05,540 for technical support services and royalty. The TPO rejected TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking international transactions for royalty payments and applied the CUP method, determining the ALP of royalty and technical support fee at nil. The TPO's rejection was based on the taxpayer's failure to provide evidence of benefits from royalty payments and the lack of a cost-benefit analysis. However, the taxpayer provided supplementary analysis showing royalty payments by independent third parties and other group entities at similar rates. The Tribunal found that the TPO's application of the benefit test and abrupt switch to CUP without reason was inappropriate. The issue was remanded to the TPO for fresh consideration after providing the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard.GROUNDS NO.3 & 4:The taxpayer challenged the inclusion of Munjal Showa Ltd. and the exclusion of Bosch Chasis Systems India Ltd. as comparables. The TPO retained Munjal Showa Ltd. despite its different manufacturing activities and significantly larger turnover. The Tribunal remanded this issue to the TPO for reconsideration based on the taxpayer's cited decisions. Bosch Chasis Systems India Ltd. was rejected by the TPO solely due to a different financial year. The Tribunal noted that functional similarity existed and remanded the issue to the TPO to determine its suitability as a comparable after providing the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard.GROUND NO.5:The taxpayer's claim for capacity utilization adjustment was denied by the TPO/DRP/AO. The taxpayer argued that it operated at a different capacity level compared to older, more established comparables. The Tribunal noted that the TPO provided no reason for rejecting the claim and remanded the issue back to the TPO for fresh consideration, requiring the taxpayer to provide complete data to substantiate the claim.GROUND NO.7:This ground was deemed premature and required no specific findings.GROUND NO.8:This ground was consequential in nature and required no specific findings.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the taxpayer was allowed for statistical purposes, and several issues were remanded to the TPO for fresh consideration after providing the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal emphasized the need for consistency and proper reasoning in the TPO's decisions, particularly regarding the application of transfer pricing methods and the assessment of benefits from royalty and service fees.
TaxTMI 