Transfer pricing benchmarking must follow prescribed methods; nil ALP and receivables interest adjustments were deleted.

Transfer pricing adjustments for management services cannot be fixed at nil merely because the authorities question business benefit; benchmarking must follow the prescribed transfer pricing method, and the assessee's documentation showing receipt of services was not effectively dislodged, so the nil ALP adjustment was deleted. Interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises also must be benchmarked under the transfer pricing framework using an appropriate method and comparable conditions, not by applying the State Bank of India prime lending rate as a standalone standard, so that adjustment was likewise deleted. The article states that both additions were unsustainable and that the assessee obtained complete relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the arm's length price of management services received from the associated enterprise could be determined at nil and the resulting transfer pricing adjustment sustained; and (ii) whether the adjustment made on account of interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises was justified.

Issue (i): whether the arm's length price of management services received from the associated enterprise could be determined at nil and the resulting transfer pricing adjustment sustained.

Analysis: The assessee had produced documentation and supporting material to show receipt of management services in the course of business. The determination of actual business benefit is not within the domain of transfer pricing analysis, and the arm's length exercise must proceed by applying a prescribed method rather than by fixing the price at nil merely on a benefit-based view. The lower authorities did not dislodge the genuineness of the material relied upon by the assessee, nor did they justify rejection of the claimed benchmarking on a legally sustainable basis.

Conclusion: The adjustment made by determining the arm's length price of management services at nil was unsustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the adjustment made on account of interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises was justified.

Analysis: The receivables adjustment was made by adopting the State Bank of India prime lending rate without first applying the most appropriate method for transfer pricing purposes. Interest on international receivables must be benchmarked within the transfer pricing framework by reference to an appropriate method and comparable conditions, not by importing an unrelated domestic lending rate as the standard.

Conclusion: The adjustment on account of interest on receivables was unsustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing additions on both management services and interest on receivables could not be sustained, and the assessee obtained complete relief in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer pricing adjustment cannot be sustained merely on a subjective benefit analysis or by adopting an unrelated domestic rate; it must be determined by applying a legally prescribed benchmarking method on the facts of the international transaction.

---