Duty drawback constitutes operating profit as it compensates for duties in raw material costs, comparable companies excluded

The ITAT Bangalore remitted the duty drawback issue to the TPO for verification, holding that duty drawback constitutes operating profit as it compensates for duties already included in raw material costs. The tribunal excluded UMW Industries Ltd from comparables, finding its guidance wire manufacturing for defense activities functionally different from the assessee's textile machinery supply. Lohia Corporation Ltd was also excluded due to significant R&D expenditure exceeding 3% threshold. The tribunal restricted TP adjustments to only international transactions with associated enterprises and directed working capital adjustments based on actual figures after comparable company exclusions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order.
2. Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments.
3. Rejection of TP documentation.
4. Economic analysis undertaken by the appellant.
5. Filters and comparables selection.
6. Treatment of duty drawback.
7. Inclusion of specific comparable companies.
8. Computation of TP adjustment.
9. Working capital adjustment.
10. Capacity utilization adjustment.
11. Depreciation adjustment.
12. Deduction under section 37(1) for education cess and secondary & higher education cess.
13. Relief provided by the DRP.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order:
The appellant contested the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO, pursuant to the directions of the DRP and the TPO, claiming it was prejudicial. However, this issue was not separately adjudicated as it was deemed general.

2. Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustments:
The AO made a TP adjustment of INR 32,04,00,000 to the appellant's international transactions. The appellant challenged this adjustment, asserting errors in the rejection of its TP documentation and economic analysis.

3. Rejection of TP Documentation:
The TPO rejected the TP documentation maintained by the appellant under Section 92D of the Act. The appellant argued that this rejection was arbitrary and that the economic analysis undertaken by them was in accordance with the Act and Income-tax Rules, 1962.

4. Economic Analysis Undertaken by the Appellant:
The appellant contended that the AO and DRP erred in rejecting the economic analysis it conducted and instead conducted a fresh analysis. This issue was not separately adjudicated as it was deemed general.

5. Filters and Comparables Selection:
The appellant argued that the AO/DRP erred in rejecting the filters applied by them and in selecting comparables that did not pass the test of comparability analysis. Specific companies contested included Lakshmi Machine Works Limited, Meera Industries Private Limited, UMW Industries Limited, and Lohia Corp Limited.

6. Treatment of Duty Drawback:
The appellant contended that duty drawback should be considered as part of the operating income. The Tribunal agreed, stating that duty drawback compensates for the duty component included in the cost of raw materials, thus forming part of the operating profit. The issue was remitted back to the TPO for verification.

7. Inclusion of Specific Comparable Companies:
UMW Industries Ltd.:
The Tribunal found UMW Industries Ltd. not comparable as its principal activity is manufacturing guidance wire for defense, unlike the appellant's textile machinery manufacturing.

Lohia Corporation Ltd.:
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Lohia Corporation Ltd. due to its significant R&D expenditure, which differs from the appellant's reliance on AE's technical know-how.

8. Computation of TP Adjustment:
The appellant argued that the TP adjustment should be restricted to the value of international transactions. The Tribunal agreed, following the decision in IKA India Pvt. Ltd., and directed the TPO/AO to compute the adjustment accordingly.

9. Working Capital Adjustment:
The Tribunal held that working capital adjustment should be allowed as per actuals, following the decision in Huawei Technologies India P. Ltd. The issue was remitted to the AO/TPO for necessary examination and computation.

10. Capacity Utilization Adjustment:
The appellant did not press for this ground during the hearing.

11. Depreciation Adjustment:
The appellant did not press for this ground during the hearing.

12. Deduction under Section 37(1) for Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess:
The appellant did not press this ground during the hearing.

13. Relief Provided by the DRP:
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not consider the relief provided by the DRP regarding the weighted average operating margin of UMW Industries Limited. However, this became infructuous due to the exclusion of UMW Industries Ltd. from the comparables.

Additional Ground:
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground for the inclusion of GSL Textiles, which was initially rejected by the TPO. The issue was remitted back to the TPO for fresh consideration.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with directions for the AO/TPO to recompute adjustments and consider the inclusion/exclusion of comparables based on the Tribunal's observations.

---