Court remands ALP determination of "Professional Charges paid" transaction, emphasizes compliance and hearing opportunity.

The court allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for a fresh determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the "Professional Charges paid" transaction. The court emphasized compliance with the law and providing the assessee an opportunity for a hearing in this fresh determination.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Aggregation approach in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions.
2. Whether intra-group services were availed by the assessee.
3. Determination of the ALP of the transaction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Aggregation Approach in Determining the ALP:

The primary question was whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was justified in segregating the international transaction of "Professional Charges paid" from other transactions. The assessee had aggregated this transaction with others under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The TPO, however, determined the ALP independently using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. The court noted that Section 92(1) of the Income-tax Act mandates computing income from 'an international transaction' at its arm's length price. Rule 10A(d) defines a 'transaction' to include a number of closely linked transactions. The court cited the Punjab & Haryana High Court's ruling in Knorr-Bremse India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, which outlined three scenarios where aggregation is permissible: package deals, transactions priced dependently, and inextricably linked transactions. The court concluded that the professional charges were not closely linked with other transactions like the purchase of raw materials and royalty payments. Thus, the TPO was justified in segregating the transaction.

II. Whether Intra-Group Services Were Availed:

The TPO determined a NIL ALP on the grounds that the assessee did not furnish evidence of receipt of services and no benefit was established from such services. The court emphasized that the relevant consideration is the bona fide incurrence of expenditure and availing of services, irrespective of revenue increase. The court examined the Service Agreement and Cost Sharing Agreement, which listed various services availed by the assessee, such as General Management, Sales and Marketing, Accounting, Control and Tax, Legal, Insurance and Real Estate, Human Resources, Production Purchasing, Manufacturing, and Quality. The assessee provided detailed descriptions and email communications proving the receipt of these services. The court held that the authorities were not justified in concluding that no services were availed.

III. Determination of the ALP of the Transaction:

The TPO rejected the TNMM on aggregate basis and applied the CUP method, determining a NIL ALP due to the perceived lack of evidence of services availed. The court found that the TPO did apply a specified method (CUP) but erred in determining NIL ALP after establishing that the services were indeed availed. The court directed the AO/TPO to determine the ALP afresh, allowing the use of any method and selection of the tested party, depending on which is least complex and facilitates proper ALP determination. The court emphasized providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing in this fresh determination.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of the ALP of the "Professional Charges paid" transaction, ensuring compliance with the law and providing the assessee an opportunity for a hearing.

Order Pronouncement:

The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 20th May, 2022.

---