Tribunal directs ALP re-determination for RTSF segment, allows working capital adjustment

The appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions in the Ready to Serve Food (RTSF) segment using entity level data, include export incentives as operating revenue, restrict transfer pricing adjustments to international transactions, grant working capital adjustment, and allow the deduction of education cess. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions and provided the assessee with opportunities to substantiate its claims.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of Arm's Length Price (ALP) using entity level data vs. segmental level data.
2. Inclusion of Madhur Industries Limited in the list of comparables.
3. Treatment of export incentives as operating or non-operating revenue.
4. Granting proportionate adjustment for transfer pricing additions.
5. Granting working capital adjustment.
6. Deductibility of education cess as an expense.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of ALP Using Entity Level Data vs. Segmental Level Data:
The primary issue was whether the ALP should be computed using entity level data, as determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), or segmental level data, as claimed by the assessee. The assessee's segmental income statement was rejected by the TPO due to vague and unreliable cost allocations. The Tribunal upheld the TPO's approach, noting that the assessee could not substantiate a rational allocation of costs to the Ready to Serve Food (RTSF) segment. Consequently, the authorities were justified in using the combined accounts approach for ALP determination.

2. Inclusion of Madhur Industries Limited in the List of Comparables:
The assessee argued for the inclusion of Madhur Industries Limited as a comparable company. The TPO and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) excluded this company due to its higher turnover and unclear business profile. The Tribunal noted that the turnover filter adopted by the assessee allowed for higher turnover within permissible limits and that the functional similarity of the company was not established. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-examine the inclusion of Madhur Industries Limited, giving the assessee an opportunity to prove its functional comparability.

3. Treatment of Export Incentives as Operating or Non-Operating Revenue:
The assessee treated export incentives as operating revenue, while the TPO considered them non-operating. The Tribunal highlighted that export incentives are integral to export revenue, as they are intended to make Indian exporters competitive. The DRP's departure from its earlier stance of considering export incentives as operating revenue was not justified. The Tribunal directed that export incentives should be treated as part of operating revenue, aligning with previous Tribunal decisions and the Government's intent behind such incentives.

4. Granting Proportionate Adjustment for Transfer Pricing Additions:
The assessee contended that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted to the extent of international transactions. The Tribunal referenced the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd., which held that transfer pricing adjustments should be limited to international transactions. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to restrict the transfer pricing addition accordingly.

5. Granting Working Capital Adjustment:
The DRP had directed the AO/TPO to allow working capital adjustment after verification, but the AO failed to implement this direction. The Tribunal emphasized that the DRP's directions are binding and must be followed. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to grant the working capital adjustment as per the DRP's methodology, ensuring compliance with the directions.

6. Deductibility of Education Cess as an Expense:
The assessee raised an additional ground regarding the deductibility of education cess. The Tribunal admitted this ground, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT, which allows raising new legal questions if relevant facts are on record. The Tribunal cited the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT, which held that education cess is not disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal directed the AO to ascertain the correct amount of education cess and allow it as a deductible expense.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the AO/TPO to re-determine the ALP of the international transactions in the RTSF segment, include export incentives as operating revenue, restrict transfer pricing adjustments to international transactions, grant working capital adjustment, and allow the deduction of education cess. The Tribunal emphasized the need for compliance with DRP directions and provided the assessee with opportunities to substantiate its claims.

---