Transfer pricing segmental allocation and foreign reimbursement withholding rules clarified on taxable income and treaty make available tests

Segmental results based on actual allocation were accepted for transfer pricing where project work was treated as a separate profit centre and non-project expenses were incurred for a distinct business purpose; the absence of a separate revenue stream was not, by itself, a valid basis to reject that method. The prior acceptance of the same approach in earlier and later years also supported consistency, so the transfer pricing allocation was remanded for fresh examination. Reimbursement of recruitment expenses to a non-resident parent was not disallowable under section 40(a)(i) because the payment did not contain taxable income in India, the treaty "make available" condition was not met, and no withholding obligation arose under section 195.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's segmental results separating project and non-project expenses could be rejected for transfer pricing purposes and the entire cost treated as operating cost for arm's length price determination; (ii) Whether reimbursement of recruitment expenses to a non-resident parent company was liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for want of tax deduction at source.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's segmental results separating project and non-project expenses could be rejected for transfer pricing purposes and the entire cost treated as operating cost for arm's length price determination.

Analysis: The assessee had adopted an actual basis of allocation and treated project work as a separate profit centre, while non-project expenses were incurred for business development and independent entrepreneurial activity. The rejection by the transfer pricing officer rested mainly on the absence of a separate revenue stream for non-project expenses and on the assumption that all expenses were necessarily part of the project activity. The absence of a separate revenue stream was held to be irrelevant where the expenditure was incurred for a distinct business purpose. Consistency also mattered because the same segmental approach had been accepted in the immediately preceding and succeeding years. The view that the allocation basis had to be found in the agreement or constitutional documents was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The segmental approach was accepted, the rejection of the assessee's allocation method was held to be unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the transfer pricing officer for re-examination.

Issue (ii): Whether reimbursement of recruitment expenses to a non-resident parent company was liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for want of tax deduction at source.

Analysis: Tax deduction at source was held to arise only if the payment contained income taxable in India. The reimbursement was not shown to carry taxable income in India. Further, recruitment fees did not satisfy the treaty's make available requirement under Article 12(4)(b), and the treaty position prevailed where more beneficial. In the absence of a withholding obligation under section 195, disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The disallowance was deleted and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the reimbursement issue and the transfer pricing issue was accepted in principle, with the first issue sent back for fresh examination by the transfer pricing officer.

Ratio Decidendi: For transfer pricing, segmental results supported by actual allocation cannot be rejected merely because non-project expenses do not generate a separate revenue stream, and tax withholding on a foreign reimbursement is not required unless the payment contains taxable income under the Act or treaty.

---