Transfer pricing method and Rule 46A evidence rules: Berry Ratio rejected, TNMM accepted, and ad hoc expense disallowance deleted.

Additional evidence was accepted under Rule 46A because the assessee had not been given adequate time before the transfer pricing authority, the material was relevant, reasons were recorded, and the revenue had full remand opportunity. In transfer pricing, Berry Ratio was held inapplicable where the associated enterprise carried on an independent chartering business, assumed entrepreneurial risk, and was not a pure distributor; TNMM with operating profit to total cost was accepted as the proper method. Only controlled transactions between the assessee and the associated enterprise could be used for arm's length analysis, not the associated enterprise's third-party dealings. An ad hoc office expense disallowance based on estimate was deleted because no specific unverifiable item was identified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additional evidence was rightly admitted under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; (ii) whether the transfer pricing adjustment based on Berry Ratio could be sustained and whether TNMM with the associated enterprise as tested party was the proper method, including exclusion of non-related third party transactions from the arm's length analysis; (iii) whether the ad hoc disallowance out of office expenses was justified.

Issue (i): Whether additional evidence was rightly admitted under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis: The assessee was not afforded adequate time to furnish the relevant material before the transfer pricing authority. The evidence was relevant to the issues in dispute, the appellate authority recorded reasons for admission, and the revenue authorities were given full opportunity in remand proceedings. The assessee's failure to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel did not forfeit the right to adduce additional evidence before the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The admission of additional evidence was upheld and was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment based on Berry Ratio could be sustained and whether TNMM with the associated enterprise as tested party was the proper method, including exclusion of non-related third party transactions from the arm's length analysis.

Analysis: The appellate authority found that the associated enterprise carried on an independent chartering business, assumed entrepreneurial risks, employed its own funds, and was not a mere facilitator or pure distributor. On that factual foundation, Berry Ratio was held to be inapplicable and TNMM with operating profit to total cost was accepted as the proper approach. The authority further held that only transactions between the assessee and the associated enterprise could be considered for transfer pricing purposes, and not the associated enterprise's transactions with third parties. The revenue did not dislodge these factual findings.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the ad hoc disallowance out of office expenses was justified.

Analysis: The disallowance was made on estimate without pointing out any specific unverifiable or non-business item, despite audited books and vouched expenditure. Such a general percentage-based disallowance was found unsustainable.

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

Final Conclusion: The appellate order granting relief on the transfer pricing addition and deleting the ad hoc expense disallowance was sustained, and the revenue's challenge failed overall.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing matters, the arm's length price must be tested only on the controlled international transactions between the assessee and the associated enterprise, and Berry Ratio is not applicable where the tested entity is not a pure distributor but an independent entrepreneurial service provider assuming real business functions and risks.

---