Tribunal remits case for fresh determination of Arm's Length Price for royalty payment transaction

The tribunal remitted the case to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for a fresh determination of the Arm's Length Price for the international transaction involving royalty payment for the product 3DX, utilizing the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method. The tribunal emphasized the need for a transaction-specific approach and referenced relevant case law, directing reconsideration in line with established principles. The appeal was allowed solely for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment for the payment of royalty.
2. Benchmarking method for international transactions.
3. Application of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method versus the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
4. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for royalty payments.
5. Applicability of Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition on Account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment for the Payment of Royalty:
The primary issue in this appeal is the addition of Rs. 156,38,82,889/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee, an Indian subsidiary of a UK-based company, paid royalty to its associated enterprise (AE) for the product 3DX. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) disputed this payment, arguing that the product 3DX was merely a replication of an older model, 3D, whose patent had expired. The TPO determined the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the royalty payment to be Nil, leading to a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 164.74 crore. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) later adjusted this to 0.25% of sales, resulting in the final addition of Rs. 156.38 crore.

2. Benchmarking Method for International Transactions:
The assessee initially used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking its international transactions but later employed the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method specifically for the payment of royalty. The TPO and DRP, however, found inconsistencies in the comparables chosen by the assessee under the CUP method, and the DRP directed a minimal ALP of 0.25% on sales.

3. Application of the CUP Method versus the TNMM:
The tribunal has consistently held that the benchmarking of international transactions should be done on a transaction-by-transaction basis, rather than aggregating all transactions under the TNMM. The CUP method was deemed more appropriate for the royalty payment transaction. The TPO rejected the comparables chosen by the assessee under the CUP method due to differences in technology and geographical locations.

4. Determination of ALP for Royalty Payments:
The TPO initially determined the ALP of the royalty payment to be Nil, arguing that the assessee did not derive any significant benefit from the payment. The DRP, however, acknowledged some marginal use of technical know-how and directed an ALP of 0.25% on sales. The tribunal found this ad hoc approach unacceptable and remanded the matter back to the AO/TPO for a fresh determination of the ALP using the CUP method.

5. Applicability of Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee argued that no addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment is permissible as the AO did not make any disallowance under Section 37(1). The tribunal referred to the judgment in CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd., which held that the TPO's authority is limited to determining the ALP of an international transaction, while the AO must decide on the deductibility under Section 37(1). The tribunal found that the AO and TPO's actions were inconsistent with this precedent and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of the ALP of the international transaction of payment of royalty for the model 3DX using the CUP method, in line with the tribunal's earlier decisions and the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

---