Tribunal rules in favor of taxpayer, finding management service fees at Arm's Length Price

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the payment of management services fees was at Arm's Length Price (ALP) and quashing the transfer pricing addition of Rs. 1.59 crore.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Addition
2. Arm's Length Price (ALP) of Payment of Management Services Fees
3. Evidence of Availing Management Services
4. Determination of ALP for Management Services Fees

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Addition:
The core issue in the appeal is the transfer pricing addition of Rs. 1,59,45,450 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) by treating the Arms’ Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction of 'Payment of Management Services Fees' at Nil. The assessee, a domestic company engaged in the distribution of cutting and drilling tools, had imported finished goods from overseas Walter group entities for resale in India and declared a total income of Rs. 49,25,610. The return included Form No. 3CEB with details of various international transactions, including the payment of management services fees.

2. Arm's Length Price (ALP) of Payment of Management Services Fees:
The assessee benchmarked the international transactions of import of finished goods and payment of management services fees separately under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted the ALP for the import of finished goods after considering a voluntarily offered transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 6.07 crore. However, the TPO disputed the ALP of the payment of management services fees, determining it at Nil due to a lack of evidence for availing the services, leading to a recommended transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1.59 crore.

3. Evidence of Availing Management Services:
The TPO's determination of Nil ALP was based on the absence of evidence showing that the assessee availed the management services. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's decision, noting inconsistencies and a lack of evidence. However, the assessee provided detailed descriptions and emails demonstrating the receipt of services, which were tabulated and presented in the paper book. The Tribunal observed that the services were indeed availed, as evidenced by the Management Services Agreement and supporting documentation.

4. Determination of ALP for Management Services Fees:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already offered a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 6.07 crore, representing a profit margin of 5.97%, which included the effect of the payment of management services fees. The AO/TPO's separate adjustment of Rs. 1.59 crore resulted in double disallowance, which was deemed unjustified. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the order for the preceding assessment year (2011-12), where the identical transaction was held at ALP. In the absence of any distinguishing features between the two years, the Tribunal concluded that the payment of management services fees was at ALP.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the payment of management services fees was at ALP and quashing the transfer pricing addition of Rs. 1.59 crore. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 28th February 2020.

---