Tribunal sets aside order, remits case for fresh adjudication on transfer pricing.

The tribunal set aside the order and remitted the case to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, following the precedent set by a similar case. The tribunal emphasized reconsideration of aggregation versus segregation of international transactions for transfer pricing and the appropriate method for determining the Arm's Length Price. Further submissions on the application of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method were not addressed as the matter was remitted for reconsideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced on 13.12.2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 9,93,69,480/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment.
2. Application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method versus Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for determining Arm’s Length Price (ALP).
3. Aggregation versus segregation of international transactions for transfer pricing.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 9,93,69,480/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment:
The primary issue in this appeal is the addition of Rs. 9,93,69,480/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee, a joint venture incorporated in India, engaged in manufacturing auto ancillaries, filed a return of income declaring 11 international transactions. The AO referred the determination of the arm’s length price (ALP) of these transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO accepted most transactions at ALP but disputed the payment of royalty and technical know-how fees, applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method instead of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) used by the assessee. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) partially upheld the TPO's approach but directed adjustments, resulting in the final addition of Rs. 9,93,69,480/-.

2. Application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method versus Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for determining Arm’s Length Price (ALP):
The TPO applied the CUP method to benchmark the royalty and technical know-how fees transactions, computing a ratio of these fees to sales for comparable companies. This method was contested by the assessee, who argued for the TNMM approach, which considers the entity's overall profitability rather than specific transactions. The tribunal noted that the TPO’s application of the CUP method did not conform to Rule 10B(1)(a), which requires a direct comparison of prices paid for services in uncontrolled transactions. The TPO's method of comparing expense ratios to sales was deemed inappropriate as it did not align with the prescribed rule. The tribunal referenced the Delhi Tribunal's decision in Gruner India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, which similarly overturned a TPO's application of the CUP method, a decision upheld by the Delhi High Court.

3. Aggregation versus segregation of international transactions for transfer pricing:
The assessee argued that the TNMM should be applied on an aggregate basis, considering all international transactions together, rather than segregating the royalty and technical know-how fees. The tribunal reviewed the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., which remitted a similar issue back to the TPO for reconsideration. The High Court had directed the TPO to first determine whether aggregation of transactions was appropriate and then apply the correct method for determining the ALP. Following this precedent, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO/TPO to reconsider the aggregation versus segregation issue and to apply the correct method for determining the ALP of the disputed transactions, if segregation is deemed appropriate.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, considering the precedent set by Gruner India Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal did not address further submissions on the CUP method's application, as the matter was being remitted for reconsideration of aggregation and the appropriate method for determining the ALP. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 13.12.2017.

---