2017 (12) TMI 1785 - HC - Income Tax

Court orders ITAT to reexamine international transaction benchmarking method under Section 92C.

SPRINGER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ASSISTANT COMNIISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The Court directed the ITAT to reexamine the case comprehensively regarding the applicability of the other method for benchmarking international ... TP Adjustment - applicability of the other method for bench marking international transactions under Section 92C for which the assessee claimed applicability of Rule 10B (brought into force w.e.f. 2012-13) - HELD THAT:- TP’s report in the present instance clearly claims that the other method is the most appropriate method and proceeds to outline why the revisions for its adoptions in certain transactions even while using the TNMM for others. This aspect has not been examined by the ITAT - and also apparently by the DRP - which had at the same time rejected the AO’s remand report. Given these facts and the circumstances that the other method was introduced for the first time, and also given the fact that there does not appear to be much judicial thinking on the application of the other method as most appropriate method and all the considerations should weigh to the tax administrators in this regard vis-a-vis revenue and cost allocation, this Court is of the opinion that the ITAT should have proceed with the matter afresh instead of having remanded the matter totally to the TPO, as it did in the circumstances. In these circumstances, the impugned order is modified. The ITAT is directed to go into the matter afresh and return the findings both on the question of law and the facts afresh. Issues: Applicability of the other method for bench marking international transactions under Section 92C and the use of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) versus residual method.The judgment revolves around the applicability of the other method for bench marking international transactions under Section 92C. The assessee, a subsidiary of an international AE specializing in scientific and technical journals, argued for the use of the residual method introduced for the assessment years, in contrast to the TNMM used in previous years. The AO rejected the other methods and applied TNMM. The DRP initially sought remand and later confirmed adjustments, leading the ITAT to observe discrepancies in the assessee's approach to benchmarking transactions. The Court noted that the TP report favored the other method for certain transactions but was not adequately examined by the ITAT and the DRP. Given the novelty of the other method and lack of judicial precedent, the Court directed the ITAT to reexamine the matter comprehensively, emphasizing the need to consider all aspects of revenue and cost allocation.The Court highlighted that the TP report explicitly favored the other method for certain transactions, which was not thoroughly evaluated by the ITAT and the DRP. The Court stressed the importance of considering the introduction of the other method for the first time and the lack of established judicial interpretation on its application. The Court directed the ITAT to revisit the case to provide fresh findings on both legal and factual aspects, underscoring the significance of a comprehensive assessment considering all relevant factors related to revenue and cost allocation.The judgment addressed the need for a detailed examination of the applicability of the other method for bench marking international transactions under Section 92C. The Court emphasized the importance of thoroughly analyzing the TP report's preference for the other method in certain transactions, which was overlooked by the ITAT and the DRP. Given the lack of established judicial precedents on the other method and its implications on revenue and cost allocation, the Court directed the ITAT to reevaluate the case comprehensively to ensure a fair and informed decision based on all relevant considerations.