Tribunal sets aside TPO & DRP orders, emphasizes functional comparability & actual data for ALP determination

The Tribunal set aside the TPO and DRP orders, deeming them unsustainable for relying on location savings for adjustments. It directed re-examination, emphasizing functional comparability and actual data for determining Arm's Length Price. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP)
2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
3. Location Savings as an International Transaction
4. Methodology for Computing Location Savings
5. Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method
6. Levied Interest under Sections 234B and 234C

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP):
The primary issue raised by the assessee is regarding the determination of ALP and the consequent Transfer Pricing Adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and confirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee, a subsidiary of Parexel International Holdings BV, Netherlands, engaged in clinical research services in India, benchmarked its international transactions by selecting 17 comparable companies with an average Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of 18.05%. The TPO, however, focused on location savings and applied the Profit Split Method (PSM) to allocate these savings between the assessee and its Associated Enterprise (AE).

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The TPO concluded that conducting clinical trials in India resulted in location savings for the AE due to lower regulatory, compliance, and investigatory costs compared to developed countries. The TPO proposed a 50:50 split of these savings, resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 22,18,86,367. The DRP concurred with this view, noting that the assessee failed to provide complete information regarding the clinical trials and locations.

3. Location Savings as an International Transaction:
The assessee contended that location savings are already embedded in the margins of the comparable companies and that specific adjustments for location savings are unwarranted. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, such as Watson Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, which held that when local comparables are available, specific adjustments for location savings are not required. The Tribunal emphasized that location savings should not be the basis for determining ALP and making adjustments.

4. Methodology for Computing Location Savings:
The TPO's computation of location savings was based on unverified information and web articles, rather than actual cost data. The Tribunal found this approach unsustainable, noting that the computation was not based on actual data but on presumptions. The Tribunal stressed the need for functional comparability and actual data in determining ALP and making adjustments.

5. Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method:
The Tribunal reiterated that if local comparables are available, the benefits of location savings are already captured in the ALP determined using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The Tribunal criticized the TPO's reliance on location savings without conducting a proper comparability analysis with uncontrolled transactions.

6. Levied Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:
The assessee also challenged the levying of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal's primary focus was on the issues related to ALP determination and transfer pricing adjustments.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the TPO and DRP, finding them unsustainable due to the reliance on location savings as the basis for adjustments. The Tribunal directed the TPO/A.O. to re-examine and adjudicate the issue afresh, considering the functional comparability of the companies and actual data. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

---