2021 (10) TMI 751 - HC - Income Tax

Decision upholds fund manager exclusion from comparables, rejects one-sided notional interest adjustment where advances exceeded late receipts

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 Versus M/s. Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India (P) Ltd.

HC dismissed the Department's challenge and upheld exclusion of the identified fund manager from the comparable set, finding its functions and risk ... TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - ITAT directing to exclude Aditya Birla Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as this company performs similar functions as that of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Question of law by the Department is squarely covered in favour of the respondent-assessee vide this Court’s order [2018 (8) TMI 592 - DELHI HIGH COURT] for Assessment Year 2011-12 and Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein this Court had dismissed the appeal filed by Income Tax Department/appellant on the exclusion of ABCL from the list of comparables, as functions performed by ABCL as a fund manager were wholly different from that of the respondent and also with a totally different risk profile. Adjustments made on account of interest on receivables - Under no transfer pricing norm, principle or evaluation of any “benefit” can there be a one-sided adjustment taking into account delayed invoices while at the same time ignoring invoices/payment received in advance. Consequently, factually there can be no notional computation of ‘delayed receivables’ only ignoring the receivables received in advance. A perusal of paper book reveals that most of the invoices/receivables had been paid significantly in advance. When the period for which the amounts of receivables received in advanced enjoyed by the respondent is seen vis-a-vis the amount receivable beyond sixty days, it is apparent that the respondent has received significantly more advance rather than outstanding receivable beyond sixty days - the notional interest relating to alleged delayed payments in collecting receivables from the AEs is uncalled for as in fact, there are no outstanding receivables as the amount received in advance far outweigh the amount received late. The question as to whether in a given case transfer pricing adjustment on ‘delayed receivables’, could apply even to a debt-free company or not, hence does not arise on facts and is left open. Issues:Challenge to ITAT judgment on exclusion of comparable company and deletion of adjustments on interest on receivables.Analysis:1. The Department filed an appeal challenging the ITAT's order excluding a comparable company and deleting adjustments on interest on receivables for Assessment Year 2014-2015.2. The Department sought framing of questions of law regarding the ITAT's decisions on exclusion of the comparable company and deletion of adjustments on interest on receivables.3. The Department argued that the comparable company performs functions similar to the assessee, emphasizing the financial advisory and management services provided by the excluded company.4. The Department contended that the ITAT erred in deleting transfer pricing adjustments on interest on receivables, citing Section 92B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding international transactions.5. The Department highlighted Section 92B of the Act, stating that arrangements between Associated Enterprises for cost allocation are international transactions.6. The respondent's counsel argued that the excluded company's activities differ from the assessee's, citing previous judgments against the Department and emphasizing the distinct nature of services provided.7. Regarding the second question of law, the respondent's counsel argued that there were no outstanding receivables in the present case.8. The respondent's counsel provided details of money received corresponding to invoices raised on Associated Enterprises during Transfer Pricing Proceedings.9. The respondent's counsel contended that adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer did not consider payments made in advance, advocating for a weighted average computation of interest adjustments.10. The respondent's counsel emphasized the respondent's debt-free status and advanced payments received, arguing against the necessity of interest adjustments.11. The Court found in favor of the respondent-assessee based on previous judgments and the distinct functions of the excluded company, dismissing the Department's appeal.12. The Court emphasized that transfer pricing adjustments should consider both delayed and advanced payments, rejecting one-sided adjustments based solely on delayed invoices.13. The Court noted that most invoices/receivables were paid significantly in advance, outweighing any outstanding receivables beyond sixty days.14. Consequently, the Court found no basis for notional interest on delayed payments, as advanced payments exceeded late payments significantly.15. The Court concluded that the question of transfer pricing adjustments on delayed receivables for a debt-free company was irrelevant in this case.16. Based on the above analysis, the Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.17. The Court directed the order to be uploaded on the website and forwarded to the respective counsels via email.