Tax Appeal: Assessee wins transfer pricing case | Departmental Appeal dismissed

The Ld. CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal related to the transfer pricing adjustment. The Departmental Appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open Court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of difference in Arm's Length Price (ALP).
2. Entitlement to the benefit of proviso to sub-section (2) to section 92C of the I.T. Act.
3. Segregation of revenue and expenses related to the manufacturing segment.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Difference in Arm's Length Price (ALP)

The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,31,23,800/- made on account of the difference in ALP. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) determined the total assessed income of Rs. 9,63,50,800/- by making disallowances/additions to the returned income of Rs. 5,46,81,880/-. An adjustment of Rs. 2,31,23,800/- was made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in relation to the international transactions pertaining to the purchase of Compound Alcoholic Preparation (CAP) from the Associated Enterprise (A.E.).

The TPO clubbed the Bottled in India Scotch (BIIS) and India Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) segments and compared the net profit margin (NPM) of the combined manufacturing operations with those of broadly comparable independent companies. The TPO also rejected five companies out of the set of twelve comparable companies selected by the assessee for benchmarking the transaction and used the final year (FY 2004-05) financial data for arriving at an ALP.

The assessee argued that the TPO's approach was incorrect as BIIS and IMFL are distinct segments with different market positioning, manufacturing processes, raw materials, and returns. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, noting that the economic analysis undertaken by the appellant in respect of the international transaction pertaining to the purchase of CAP following a segmental approach by segregating manufacturing operations into BIIS and IMFL business verticals is in accordance with the relevant transfer pricing regulations. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the appellant's international transaction pertaining to the purchase of CAP complies with the arm's length standard for the year under consideration.

Issue 2: Entitlement to the Benefit of Proviso to Sub-Section (2) to Section 92C of the I.T. Act

The Revenue contended that the value of international transactions is outside the (+ 5%) tolerance band, and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to sub-section (2) to section 92C of the I.T. Act. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the updated NPM computations of the comparable companies based on their annual reports and found that the arithmetic mean now works out at 6.80% as against 7.78% computed by the TPO. As a result, the transfer pricing adjustment gets reduced to Rs. 1,01,83,795/- from Rs. 2,31,23,800/-.

The Ld. CIT(A) also considered the appellant's argument that certain comparable companies should be excluded from the final set as they were outliers and represented extreme positions. The inclusion of comparables with extreme results tends to skew the arithmetic mean of the comparable set and distort the arm's length results. The Ld. CIT(A) found merit in the appellant's alternate contentions and provided relief accordingly.

Issue 3: Segregation of Revenue and Expenses Related to the Manufacturing Segment

The TPO clubbed the BIIS and IMFL segments and compared the net margin of the combined manufacturing operations. The assessee argued that the BIIS and IMFL segments are distinct with different market positioning, manufacturing processes, raw materials, and returns. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, noting that the allocation keys used for segregation of BIIS and IMFL segments are robust and applied consistently on a year-on-year basis.

The Ld. CIT(A) held that the TPO's rationale for clubbing the two segments just because the appellant has not drawn any segmental accounts as prescribed under the Accounting Standard (AS) 17 (Segment Reporting) is not appropriate. AS 17 cannot be said to be a governing law for the economic analysis to be undertaken for transfer pricing purposes. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the economic analysis undertaken by the appellant in respect of the international transaction pertaining to the purchase of CAP following a segmental approach by segregating manufacturing operations into BIIS and IMFL business verticals is in accordance with the relevant transfer pricing regulations.

Conclusion:

The Ld. CIT(A) set aside the orders of the authorities below and decided the issue in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal related to the transfer pricing adjustment. The Departmental Appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open Court.

---