Tribunal upholds deletion of substantial addition to Arm's Length Price

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of Rs. 7,05,54,285/- made by the Assessing Officer regarding the Arm's Length Price of international transactions. The CIT(A) found the payments genuine and for business purposes, deleting the addition. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found the A.O.'s findings lacking and noted the failure to refer the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer, rendering the adjustment unsustainable. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on 20th January, 2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 7,05,54,285/- made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of Arm's Length Price (ALP).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of ALP:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the deletion of an addition of Rs. 7,05,54,285/- made by the A.O. regarding the ALP of international transactions conducted by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AEs).

Brief Facts:
The assessee, a subsidiary of Arkadin SA, France, engaged in global collaboration services, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12. During assessment, the A.O. scrutinized international transactions amounting to Rs. 7,05,54,285/- reported under section 92E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. sought detailed information and concluded that the assessee failed to substantiate the need, receipt, and benefit of services from its AEs, thus determining the ALP of the transactions at nil and adding the amount to the income of the assessee.

Findings of the CIT(A):
Upon appeal, the CIT(A) reappraised the materials and found that the payments made by the assessee to its holding company were genuine and for business purposes. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee initially incurred losses but became profitable after becoming a subsidiary of Arkadin SA, receiving business, equipment, and software from the parent company. The CIT(A) also identified that out of the Rs. 7,05,54,285/- added by the A.O., Rs. 1,17,38,993/- was income and Rs. 3,34,75,286/- was reimbursement, not claimed as an expense. The CIT(A) concluded that the payments were made through banking channels, after deducting applicable taxes, and were based on agreements, thus deleting the addition.

Revenue’s Appeal:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition, arguing that the assessee did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove the benefit and rendition of services. The Revenue also argued that the CIT(A) should not have considered documents submitted by the assessee without the A.O.'s verification.

Tribunal’s Analysis:
The Tribunal examined the record and submissions, noting that the assessee’s business improved significantly after collaboration with Arkadin SA. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the A.O.'s findings lacked cogent material and adverse evidence. The Tribunal highlighted that the A.O. incorrectly included income and reimbursements in the disallowed amount. The Tribunal also emphasized that the payments were made for business purposes, supported by agreements, and resulted in the assessee's transition from losses to profits.

Non-Referral to TPO:
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the A.O. should have referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) as the transaction value exceeded Rs. 5 crores, as per CBDT Instruction No. 3/2003. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s SG Asia Holdings (India) Private Limited, affirming that the A.O.'s failure to refer the matter to the TPO breached mandatory instructions, rendering the ALP adjustment unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and upheld the deletion of the addition. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

Order Pronouncement:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the Open Court on 20th January, 2020.

---