2019 (3) TMI 1539 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal orders fresh determination of Arm's Length Price for royalty payments

Vodafone India Limited (Earlier Vodafone Digilink Limited (formerly known as Vodafone Essar Digilink Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Circle 26 (2), New Delhi

Vodafone India Limited (Earlier Vodafone Digilink Limited (formerly known as Vodafone Essar Digilink Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, ... Issues Involved:1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for the payment of royalty.2. Applicability and justification of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method.3. Use of specific databases and filters for comparability analysis.4. Functional dissimilarity and benefit analysis in determining ALP.5. Remand for fresh consideration by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for the Payment of Royalty:The primary issue revolves around the determination of the ALP for the payment of royalty by the assessee to its associated enterprises for the use of the 'Vodafone' and 'Essar' trademarks. The assessee adopted the CUP method, using a single comparable transaction where Forward Industries Inc., USA paid a 7% royalty to Motorola Inc., USA. The TPO rejected this, determining the ALP as nil, citing functional dissimilarities and the absence of economic benefits to the assessee.2. Applicability and Justification of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method:The assessee used the CUP method, selecting a single comparable transaction. The TPO and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) rejected this method due to a lack of complete identity between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions. The Tribunal upheld that product similarity is crucial for the CUP method, and the single comparable used by the assessee was functionally dissimilar and geographically different.3. Use of Specific Databases and Filters for Comparability Analysis:The assessee used the 'PowerK' database, which includes agreements filed with the Securities Exchange Commission. The Tribunal found this unjustified, noting the availability of more specific databases for royalty transactions. The Tribunal also criticized the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the assessee, finding them without justification and leading to the selection of only one comparable agreement.4. Functional Dissimilarity and Benefit Analysis in Determining ALP:The TPO determined the ALP as nil, arguing that no economic benefit was derived by the assessee and that the assessee did not pay royalty in the past. The Tribunal rejected this reasoning, stating that the past non-payment of royalty cannot justify a nil ALP. The Tribunal emphasized that the TPO's role is to determine the ALP, not to decide if the transaction resulted in economic benefits to the assessee.5. Remand for Fresh Consideration by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO):The Tribunal, following the directions of the High Court, remanded the issue back to the TPO for a fresh determination of the ALP. The Tribunal directed the assessee to submit a fresh comparability analysis, justifying the use of databases, filters, and adjustments for geographical differences. The TPO was instructed to complete the examination and submit a remand report by specified dates, allowing both parties to consider alternative methods if the CUP method is found unsuitable.Conclusion:The Tribunal's detailed examination highlighted the inadequacies in the assessee's transfer pricing study, the unjustified use of specific databases and filters, and the inappropriate rejection of the CUP method by the TPO. The matter was remanded for a fresh determination of the ALP, with specific directions for the assessee and the TPO to follow a more rigorous and justified approach in their analysis.