Tribunal overturns CIT(A) order, directs AO to delete addition of Rs. 6,82,62,138.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 6,82,62,138. The decision was based on the inclusion of expenses reimbursed by the associated enterprise in determining the arm's length price, aligning it with the rate adopted by the TPO. The Tribunal did not address the validity of the CUP method or data quality, leaving these issues open for future consideration. The appeal was allowed, and the order was issued on 7th February 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the reference made under section 92CA(1) of the ITA to the Transfer Pricing Officer.
2. Confirmation of the addition of Rs. 68,262,138.
3. Validity of M/s. Confidence Shipping Co. as a comparable.
4. Rejection of the appellant's plea to consider expenses incurred and collected back from their AE in determining the manning fee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Reference under Section 92CA(1):
The appellant challenged the legality of the reference made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the judgment does not provide a detailed discussion on this issue, implying that the primary focus was on the substantive addition made by the TPO and upheld by the CIT(A).

2. Confirmation of the Addition of Rs. 68,262,138:
The core issue revolves around an addition of Rs. 6,82,61,138 made to the returned income on account of transfer pricing adjustment related to international transactions between the assessee and its overseas associated enterprise. The assessee, a subsidiary of Barber International Ltd., Hongkong, engaged in providing manning services, declared a loss of Rs. 2,08,90,645, which was revised to a total income of Rs. 4,89,55,180 after scrutiny. The TPO determined the arm’s length price of the international transaction of providing manning services above the stated values by Rs. 6,82,62,138. The TPO applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, using data from Confidence Shipping Pvt. Ltd., to benchmark the transactions, which the assessee contested.

3. Validity of M/s. Confidence Shipping Co. as a Comparable:
The assessee argued against the appropriateness of using Confidence Shipping Co. as a comparable, citing irrelevance and unsubstantiated data. The TPO used the rate quoted by Confidence Shipping Ltd. (US$ 150) as the arm’s length rate for the manning services provided by the assessee, leading to the adjustment. The assessee contended that even if this rate was considered valid, the actual charges recovered, including reimbursed expenses, would demonstrate that the transactions were at an arm’s length price.

4. Rejection of the Appellant's Plea to Consider Expenses:
The appellant argued that the expenses incurred (Rs. 6,38,78,901) and reimbursed by the associated enterprise should be considered in determining the arm’s length price. The TPO and CIT(A) did not factor in these expenses, leading to the disputed addition. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the expenses were related to the 'tested transaction' and should be included in the arm’s length price calculation. The Tribunal highlighted that if these expenses were considered, the rate charged per crew per month would be US$ 150.28, which is in line with the rate adopted by the TPO (US$ 150), thereby obviating the need for any further adjustment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 6,82,62,138. The decision was based on the alternate plea that even under the TPO's approach, no addition was maintainable once the reimbursements were correctly factored in. The Tribunal did not delve into the validity of the CUP method or the quality of the CUP data, leaving these issues open for future consideration. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 7th February 2018.

---