TPO and DRP adjustments remanded for fresh ALP determination, consider comparables, conduct thorough analysis.

The Tribunal found that the adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) lacked a clear basis and did not adequately consider the differing business models and risk profiles of the segments. The matter was remanded to the TPO/AO for a fresh determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP), instructing them to consider reasonable comparables and conduct a thorough functional and risk analysis. The appeals were partly allowed, and the case was remanded for further verification and investigation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Upward adjustment to the total income of the assessee.
2. Application of Transfer Pricing (TP) methods and determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP).
3. Comparability analysis and selection of comparables.
4. Adjustments for functional and risk differences.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Upward Adjustment to the Total Income of the Assessee:
The primary issue in the appeals was the upward adjustment of Rs. 14.13 crores to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO proposed an addition of Rs. 27.31 crores, which was partly upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Consequently, the AO completed the assessment determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 50.99 crores.

2. Application of Transfer Pricing (TP) Methods and Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP):
The assessee, a 100% subsidiary of a Japanese company, engaged in manufacturing injection stretch blow-moulding machines, entered into various international transactions with its AEs. The TPO used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to determine the ALP, considering Profit Level Indicator (PLI) as Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC). The TPO found that the net cost plus margin (14.01%) shown by the assessee was higher than the margin of comparable companies (12.64%), indicating that the international transactions were at arm's length. However, the TPO directed the assessee to submit segmental profit and loss accounts, leading to an adjustment based on the AE segment's OP/OC.

3. Comparability Analysis and Selection of Comparables:
The assessee argued that the AE and non-AE segments had different functional and risk profiles, and internal TNMM should not have been applied. The DRP rejected one of the comparables provided by the assessee on the ground that it was loss-making, stating that contract manufacturers could not incur losses. The DRP granted an adjustment of 8% for bulk manufacturing orders and geographical factors, reducing the addition to Rs. 14.13 crores. The assessee contended that the AE segment should be compared with companies engaged in similar contract manufacturing activities, and the non-AE segment included controlled transactions like royalty and purchase payments.

4. Adjustments for Functional and Risk Differences:
The DRP and TPO provided adjustments for various differences deemed existent between the AE and non-AE segments. The assessee argued that the revenue authorities failed to appreciate the distinct business models and risk profiles of the segments. The DRP held that internal TNMM could not be applied straight away and that adjustments for functional and risk differences were necessary. The DRP directed the AO/TPO to work out the amount of adjustments accordingly, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the orders of the TPO and DRP lacked a clear basis for the adjustments made. It was noted that the assessee's arguments regarding the different business models and risk profiles were not properly considered. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the TPO/AO for fresh determination of the ALP, directing them to consider reasonable comparables and the functional and risk analysis of such comparables. The appeals filed by the assessee and the AO were partly allowed, and the matter was remanded for further verification and investigation.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 04th January, 2017, with both appeals being partly allowed and the matter remanded to the TPO/AO for fresh determination.

---