Transfer pricing and TDS principles: no presumed AE transaction, controlled benchmarking required, and reimbursements or trade discounts may escape disallowance.

An ITAT Pune ruling on transfer pricing and TDS issues reiterates that an international transaction and its arm's length price cannot be presumed merely because advertising and marketing spend is higher than comparables; without proof of an arrangement for the AE's benefit, the adjustment on A&M expenses was rejected. For raw material imports, the Tribunal required fresh benchmarking using third-party price evidence and confined any adjustment, if warranted, to AE transactions. It also held that salary reimbursement for deputed employees and selling discounts did not attract TDS under sections 194J or 194H, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not stand, while other claims were remitted for limited verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on account of advertisement and marketing expenses was sustainable in the absence of ed international transaction and machinery for determining arm's length price; (ii) whether the transfer pricing adjustment on import of raw material required reconsideration in light of third-party pricing evidence and should be restricted to AE transactions only; (iii) whether reimbursement of salary cost of deputed employees and selling discounts paid to HUL attracted deduction of tax at source and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia); (iv) whether the payment to Star India Pvt. Ltd. and the claim for dividend distribution tax credit required limited verification.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on account of advertisement and marketing expenses was sustainable in the absence of proved international transaction and machinery for determining arm's length price.

Analysis: The adjustment had been made by comparing the assessee's A&M spend with comparables and inferring benefit to the foreign associated enterprise. The record did not show any agreement or arrangement obligating the assessee to incur such expenditure for the AE's benefit. The Tribunal followed the earlier year decision in the assessee's own case and the line of authority holding that an international transaction cannot be presumed merely because the assessee's expenditure is higher than that of comparables. It further noted that, once the very existence of the transaction is not established, determination of arm's length price and application of the bright line approach do not arise.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment on A&M expenses was not sustainable and the ground was dismissed against the Revenue, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on import of raw material required reconsideration in light of third-party pricing evidence and should be restricted to AE transactions only.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that benchmarking must be carried out against controlled transactions and therefore discounted the certificates issued by deemed AEs as standalone proof. However, the assessee had produced additional public-domain price evidence relating to third-party vendors. In that situation, the matter required fresh benchmarking by the AO/TPO. The Tribunal also held that any adjustment, if ultimately warranted, must be confined to transactions with associated enterprises and not extended to third-party purchases.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the AO/TPO for fresh examination and was partly allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reimbursement of salary cost of deputed employees and selling discounts paid to HUL attracted deduction of tax at source and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).

Analysis: On the reimbursement of salary cost, the Tribunal found no material to show that HUL rendered managerial or technical services; the payment was a pure reimbursement for deputed employees. On selling discounts, the Tribunal held that the relationship was principal to principal and the discount was not commission. Consequently, sections 194J and 194H were inapplicable and the corresponding disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) could not stand.

Conclusion: The disallowance for reimbursement of salary cost was deleted and the disallowance for selling discounts was deleted, both in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the payment to Star India Pvt. Ltd. and the claim for dividend distribution tax credit required limited verification.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the bona fide belief regarding non-deduction of tax was not, by itself, a complete answer to the section 40(a)(ia) issue. At the same time, the assessee's alternative plea invoking the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) required factual verification. For dividend distribution tax credit, the Assessing Officer had not granted credit without reasons, so the matter also required verification at assessment stage.

Conclusion: Both matters were remitted to the AO for limited verification and were partly allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the core TDS disallowance issues and failed on the A&M transfer pricing issue, while the raw material transfer pricing issue and the Star India and dividend tax credit issues were sent back for limited reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: An international transaction and its arm's length price cannot be presumed merely from a higher expenditure pattern against comparables, and reimbursement or discount transactions do not attract TDS disallowance unless they are shown to be payments for services or commission within the relevant charging provisions.

---