Tribunal upholds deletion of transfer pricing adjustment for royalty payments by Indian company to overseas entity

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range–10 (1), Mumbai Versus Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd.

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range–10 (1), Mumbai Versus Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made towards transfer pricing adjustment to the arm's length price of the royalty paid by the assessee to its overseas Associated Enterprise (AE).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition Made Towards Transfer Pricing Adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the Royalty Paid by the Assessee to its Overseas Associated Enterprise (AE):

The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition made towards transfer pricing adjustment to the arm's length price of the royalty paid by the assessee to its overseas AE. The assessee, an Indian company formed through a joint venture, engaged in manufacturing and marketing irrigation equipment, had entered into several international transactions with its overseas AE, benchmarking them using the Cost Plus Method (CPM).

The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted the benchmarking for all transactions except the royalty payment. The TPO rejected the assessee's justification for the royalty payment, citing the lack of details on the cost of technology development and royalty rates paid by other group concerns. Consequently, the TPO determined the arm's length price of the royalty payment as nil and recommended an addition of Rs. 56,30,506.

Upon appeal, the first appellate authority admitted additional evidence from the assessee, including agreements and cost details, and ruled in favor of the assessee. The appellate authority reasoned that the royalty payment was made in compliance with statutory regulations, was part of prolonged negotiations between JV partners, and was consistent with payments made by other group entities.

The Revenue's representative argued that the TPO was justified in rejecting CPM and should have applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. However, the Tribunal found that the TPO did not apply any prescribed method and determined the arm's length price on an ad-hoc basis, which is legally unsustainable. The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that the TPO must benchmark the transaction using a prescribed method.

The Tribunal also addressed the Revenue's argument that the TPO applied the CUP method, finding no evidence of such application. The Tribunal highlighted that the TPO failed to follow the mechanism prescribed under rule 10B(i)(a) for CUP, and thus, the contention was unacceptable. The Tribunal noted that the RBI/SIA approval could be considered as a valid CUP, supporting the assessee's claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment for the royalty payment. The decision applied mutatis mutandis to the appeals for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, resulting in the dismissal of those appeals as well.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 25.04.2019.