Tribunal allows appeal, upholds TNMM, directs adjustments for goodwill, remands specific issues. 'sLength

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remanding specific issues for verification by the TPO. It upheld the use of TNMM over RPM, justified the addition on account of arm's length price, and directed adjustments for goodwill amortization and segment aggregation. The Tribunal dismissed allegations of non-application of mind by the TPO, emphasizing valid reasons for filters and adjustments. General grounds were not adjudicated, and some were deemed consequential. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with detailed issues requiring further examination by the TPO.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of arm’s length price under section 92CA(3).
2. Rejection of Resale Price Method (RPM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM).
3. Fresh search process and comparables selection by TPO.
4. Treatment of goodwill amortization.
5. Aggregation of trading and service segments for benchmarking.
6. Allegations of non-application of mind by the TPO.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition on Account of Arm’s Length Price:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 70,61,839/- made by the TPO under section 92CA(3). The TPO had rejected the RPM applied by the assessee and adopted TNMM, selecting 7 comparables with an average OP/OI of 10.09%, leading to the adjustment. The Tribunal found that the TPO did not dispute the nature of the assessee as a trader and that the goods were sold without value addition. However, it upheld the TPO’s decision to use TNMM due to insufficient functional comparability in the assessee’s selected comparables. Thus, the addition was justified.

2. Rejection of Resale Price Method (RPM):
The Tribunal examined the rejection of RPM by the TPO, who argued that RPM requires stricter comparability and the assessee’s comparables were not functionally similar. The Tribunal agreed with the TPO, noting that the selected comparables engaged in diverse activities, making RPM unsuitable. It emphasized that TNMM is more tolerant of functional differences and thus more appropriate. Hence, the rejection of RPM was upheld.

3. Fresh Search Process and Comparables Selection:
The assessee argued that the TPO’s fresh search process was conducted without sharing details, violating natural justice principles. The Tribunal acknowledged that the TPO used similar filters as the assessee but failed to justify the rejection of one filter. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s ground regarding the rejection of the search process. However, it dismissed the objection to the TPO’s comparables, agreeing with the TPO’s reasoning for their selection.

4. Treatment of Goodwill Amortization:
The assessee contended that goodwill amortization should be treated as a non-operating expense. The Tribunal noted that the TPO treated it as an operating expense, but the assessee presented a practical argument showing that even with goodwill amortization, the PLI was within the acceptable range. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the TPO for verification, directing that the amortization of goodwill should be adjusted for computing the PLI if the assessee claimed depreciation on it.

5. Aggregation of Trading and Service Segments:
The assessee objected to the aggregation of trading and service segments for benchmarking. The Tribunal found that the TPO aggregated these segments without appreciating that the purchase of traded goods was part of the trading segment. It directed the TPO to verify and restrict the TP adjustment to Rs. 64,14,301/- if proper, instead of Rs. 70,61,839/-.

6. Allegations of Non-Application of Mind by the TPO:
The assessee claimed that the TPO’s order was based on conjectures and surmises, pointing out several inconsistencies and repetitions. The Tribunal acknowledged these issues but found that they did not render the order void ab initio. It dismissed the ground, stating that the TPO’s reasons for the filters and adjustments were valid.

General and Consequential Grounds:
The Tribunal did not adjudicate on general grounds (Grounds 1, 9, 12, and 13) and noted that Grounds 10 and 11 were consequential in nature.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific issues remanded for verification and proper adjudication by the TPO. The Tribunal upheld the use of TNMM over RPM and directed adjustments based on detailed verification of goodwill amortization and segment aggregation.

---