Tribunal directs AO to re-compute ALP margin, upholds RPM for trading, TNMM for manufacturing

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to verify the segmented results and re-compute the ALP margin based on identified comparables. It upheld the use of internal RPM for trading transactions and external TNMM for manufacturing transactions, while rejecting the inclusion of pigment manufacturers as comparables.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
2. Segmentation and Re-segmentation of Accounts
3. Application of TNMM and RPM Methods
4. Use of Audited Segmented Results
5. Comparability Analysis and Selection of Comparables

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The primary issue in the appeal was the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 2,23,79,449/- made by the TPO concerning international transactions involving the purchase of raw materials, finished goods, and the sale of finished goods with the AEs. The appellant company, engaged in manufacturing and selling printing inks, had its transactions benchmarked using internal TNMM and RPM methods. However, the TPO applied entity-level external TNMM, leading to the adjustment. The DRP upheld the TPO's approach but excluded four comparables, resulting in a revised adjustment.

2. Segmentation and Re-segmentation of Accounts:
The appellant prepared segmented accounts for its manufacturing and trading segments, which were further subdivided. The TPO rejected these segmented results, claiming they lacked data support and were not part of the audited financial statements. The appellant argued that the segmented accounts were reliable and had been accepted in previous years. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's segmented approach, noting that different activities should be benchmarked separately due to distinct FAR analyses.

3. Application of TNMM and RPM Methods:
The appellant used internal TNMM for manufacturing transactions and internal RPM for trading transactions. The Tribunal upheld the use of internal RPM for benchmarking the purchase of press chemicals, citing consistency with previous years' methodology. However, for manufacturing transactions, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim for further sub-segmentation and upheld the external TNMM as the most appropriate method.

4. Use of Audited Segmented Results:
The Tribunal found the lower authorities' rejection of segmented results, based on their absence from published financial statements, to be unjustified. It noted that segment reporting under AS-17 is not mandatory for all companies and that segmented results for tax purposes can be reliable even if not disclosed in financial statements. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the audited segmented results provided by the appellant.

5. Comparability Analysis and Selection of Comparables:
The Tribunal emphasized the need for selecting comparables engaged in similar business activities. It rejected the DRP's retention of companies manufacturing pigments, noting that these were not comparable to the appellant's business of manufacturing printing inks. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the ALP margin using the four comparables identified by the appellant, which were engaged in the manufacture of printing inks.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to verify the segmented results and re-compute the ALP margin based on the identified comparables. The Tribunal upheld the use of internal RPM for trading transactions and external TNMM for manufacturing transactions, while rejecting the inclusion of pigment manufacturers as comparables.

---