Appeal partly allowed, directing benchmarking under CUP method. Management services fee and interest levy struck down.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer/TPO to accept the benchmarking under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method after verification. The additions on account of management services fee and reimbursement of salary were deleted. The levy of interest under section 234B was also struck down based on the Supreme Court's ruling.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Benchmarking Method for Charter Hire of Dredgers
2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Sub-Contract Charges
3. Addition on Account of Management Services Fee
4. Addition on Account of Reimbursement of Salary
5. Levy of Interest under Section 234B

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Benchmarking Method for Charter Hire of Dredgers:

The assessee, a foreign company incorporated in the Netherlands, challenged the decision of the Departmental Authorities in rejecting the benchmarking done by the assessee for payments made to Associated Enterprises (AE) towards charter hire of dredgers. The assessee had applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method based on a valuation certificate obtained from Van Woerkom, Nobels & Ten Veen. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the CUP method, arguing that it was based on a valuation report rather than actual transactions and selected the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method, resulting in an upward adjustment of Rs. 161,70,50,636 to the arm's length price.

The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's decision. However, the Tribunal found that the Department had accepted the valuation done by the independent valuer as per VG Bouw / CIRIA norms in previous years. The Tribunal ruled that the principle of consistency should be applied and directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to accept the benchmarking done by the assessee under CUP method after verifying that the independent valuer made the valuation as per CIRIA norms.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Sub-Contract Charges:

The issue of transfer pricing adjustment in relation to the sub-contract charges paid to Van Oord India Pvt. Ltd. became academic in light of the Tribunal's decision on the primary issue of benchmarking the charter hire of dredgers. Therefore, these grounds did not require adjudication.

3. Addition on Account of Management Services Fee:

The assessee received Rs. 9,72,01,066 for providing various services to group companies, which the Assessing Officer treated as royalty under Article-12 of the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The DRP upheld this view. However, the Tribunal referred to its decision in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10, where it was held that the management fee was neither in the nature of royalty nor fee for technical services under Article-12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

4. Addition on Account of Reimbursement of Salary:

The Assessing Officer and the DRP treated the reimbursement of salary as fees for technical services. The Tribunal, however, referred to its decision in the assessee’s case for the assessment year 2009-10, where it was held that reimbursement of salary is not in the nature of fees for technical services under Article-12(5) of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Tribunal deleted the addition based on this precedent.

5. Levy of Interest under Section 234B:

The issue of levy of interest under section 234B of the Act was agreed by both parties to be covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the assessee’s own case. The Supreme Court had upheld that interest under section 234B cannot be charged as the assessee is not liable to pay advance tax; the liability is on the payer to deduct tax at source. Following this decision, the Tribunal allowed the ground raised by the assessee.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer/TPO to accept the benchmarking done by the assessee under CUP method after verification, and deleting the additions made on account of management services fee and reimbursement of salary. The levy of interest under section 234B was also struck down based on the Supreme Court's ruling.

---