TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal directs reconsideration of transfer pricing adjustments, capacity utilization, comparables, and more in appeal</h1> <h3>M/s. Continental Automotive Components India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle – 2 (1) (1), Bengaluru</h3> M/s. Continental Automotive Components India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle – 2 (1) (1), Bengaluru - TMI Issues Involved:1. Transfer pricing adjustment in the manufacturing segment.2. Transfer pricing adjustment in the software development services (SWD) segment.3. Disallowance of provision for warranty.4. Disallowance of annual license fees.5. Non-set off of brought forward losses.Detailed Analysis:1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment in the Manufacturing Segment:The primary contention in this segment was the determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for transactions between the assessee and its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The assessee used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and adjusted its net profit margin to account for differences in capacity utilization, customs duty, and exchange rate fluctuations. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected these adjustments, leading to a significant dispute.- Capacity Utilization Adjustment: The Tribunal remanded the issue to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration, directing them to obtain details of capacity utilization of comparable companies if not available in the public domain.- Customs Duty Adjustment: The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee’s case for AY 2012-13, remanding the issue to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration.- Exchange Rate Fluctuation Adjustment: The Tribunal remanded the issue to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to exclude forex gains/losses from operating costs.- Depreciation Adjustment: The Tribunal held that the adjustment on account of underutilization of capacity would sufficiently address the depreciation adjustment.- Comparable Companies: The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to reconsider the inclusion/exclusion of specific companies as comparables based on functional similarities and other criteria.- Proportionate Adjustment: The Tribunal held that the adjustment should be restricted to the proportionate value of international transactions with AEs, not the entire segment.2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment in the Software Development Services (SWD) Segment:The Tribunal addressed the inclusion/exclusion of several comparable companies used by the TPO and the assessee.- Exclusion of Certain Comparables: The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Infosys Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Thirdware Solutions Ltd. based on previous Tribunal decisions.- Inclusion of Certain Comparables: The Tribunal remanded the issue of inclusion of Akshay Software Technologies Ltd., Maveric Systems Ltd., and others to the TPO for fresh consideration.- Working Capital Adjustment: The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to allow working capital adjustments in accordance with the law.3. Disallowance of Provision for Warranty:The Tribunal allowed the provision for warranty as a deduction, holding that the provision was created based on past experience and historical trends, satisfying the requirements for claiming it as a liability.4. Disallowance of Annual License Fees:The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, directing them to examine the evidence and submissions provided by the assessee regarding the nature of the expenses. The Tribunal also allowed the alternative claim of the assessee for depreciation if the expenses were treated as capital in nature.5. Non-set off of Brought Forward Losses:The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the claim of the assessee for set-off of brought forward losses after due verification and affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.Conclusion:The Tribunal provided detailed directions for reconsideration and fresh adjudication of several issues by the TPO/AO, emphasizing the need for proper examination of evidence and adherence to legal principles in determining the ALP and other matters. The appeal was partly allowed, with specific remands and directions for each issue.
TaxTMI 