Appeal allowed as TPO failed to justify method change, leading to deletion of ALP adjustment. Delay justified.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by rejecting the Transfer Pricing Officer's adoption of the Transactional Net Margin Method over the Cost Plus Method for determining the Arm's Length Price. The Tribunal found the TPO did not follow proper procedure in justifying the method change, leading to the deletion of the ALP adjustment. Additionally, the delay in pronouncement of the order due to the COVID-19 lockdown was deemed justified, resulting in the appeal being allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Appropriateness of rejecting the Cost Plus Method (CPM) for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) and adopting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
2. Confirmation of ALP adjustment of Rs. 1,80,00,639 by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
3. Procedural compliance regarding the time limit for pronouncement of the order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appropriateness of Rejecting CPM and Adopting TNMM:
The primary issue was whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was correct in rejecting the CPM for determining the ALP of transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) and adopting TNMM instead. The TPO's reasons for rejecting CPM included significant volume differences between AE and non-AE transactions, differences in functions performed, assets deployed, and risks assumed. The TPO also noted issues with unrelated party projects and geographical differences in market conditions.

The Tribunal analyzed these reasons and found them unsustainable. The volume difference was not deemed material enough to affect comparability. The TPO's claim of differences in functions, assets, and risks was not elaborated with specifics. Issues faced by unrelated party projects were not relevant to the profit element in revenues. Geographical differences alone were insufficient to reject CPM, as the market for consultancy services in the oil and gas sector is not restricted by national boundaries.

The Tribunal concluded that the TPO did not follow the proper procedure for rejecting CPM and adopting TNMM. The TPO must demonstrate that the method proposed is more appropriate, which was not done in this case. Consequently, the ALP adjustment of Rs. 1,80,00,639 was deleted.

2. Confirmation of ALP Adjustment by DRP:
The DRP confirmed the TPO's adoption of TNMM and the resulting ALP adjustment, but provided some relief on the selection of comparable companies. However, the Tribunal found that the DRP's confirmation of the TPO's rejection of CPM was incorrect. The Tribunal's decision to delete the ALP adjustment rendered other issues raised in the appeal infructuous.

3. Procedural Compliance Regarding Time Limit for Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced beyond the 90-day period from the conclusion of the hearing due to the nationwide lockdown imposed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The Tribunal referred to Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which allows for pronouncement beyond 90 days in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal justified the delay by citing the unprecedented disruption caused by the lockdown and the extensions provided by higher judicial authorities, including the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.

The Tribunal emphasized that the interpretation of time limits should consider ground realities and the extraordinary situation caused by the pandemic. Therefore, the delay in pronouncement was deemed justified, and the appeal was allowed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the ALP adjustment of Rs. 1,80,00,639 by rejecting the TPO's adoption of TNMM over CPM. The procedural delay in pronouncement due to the COVID-19 lockdown was also justified.

---