Tribunal upholds TPO and DRP decisions on transfer pricing issues for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14

The tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The tribunal upheld the findings of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on all issues, including recharacterizing the assessee as a contract manufacturer, determining the arm's length value of management services as 'NIL', and disallowing grossed-up TDS on external commercial borrowings. The order was pronounced on 3rd November 2021.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Recharacterization of the assessee as a contract manufacturer.
2. Determination of arm's length value of management services.
3. Disallowance of grossed-up TDS on external commercial borrowings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recharacterization of the Assessee as a Contract Manufacturer:

The assessee, a wholly-owned subsidiary engaged in manufacturing moulded components for mobile phones, was recharacterized by the TPO as a contract manufacturer executing work orders as per the directions of its AEs. This recharacterization led to the conclusion that the requirement for availing management services did not arise. The assessee argued that the TPO, AO, and DRP erred in this recharacterization, which was prejudicial to its interests and contrary to law.

2. Determination of Arm's Length Value of Management Services:

The TPO determined the arm's length value of management services to be 'NIL', questioning the commercial wisdom of the assessee and the necessity of availing such services. The TPO's determination was based on the lack of evidence provided by the assessee to substantiate the receipt of services. The assessee contended that the TPO erred by not merely restricting himself to the determination of the arm's length price and by disregarding the information and documents provided. The DRP upheld the TPO's findings, stating that the agreement between the parties did not substantiate the actual rendering of services and that no arm's length parties would enter into such an agreement where payment is made without actual services being rendered. The DRP further noted that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence to justify the payment of management fees, such as technical specifications of services rendered, personnel deployed, and other supporting documents.

3. Disallowance of Grossed-up TDS on External Commercial Borrowings:

The assessee had availed ECB loans from related parties and grossed up the interest payment for the TDS portion, which was disallowed by the TPO. The TPO argued that the TDS deducted on payments made to the AE was the liability of the AE, not the assessee. The assessee contended that as per the contractual arrangement, it was liable to deposit the TDS applicable on the payment, and thus, it should be allowed as a deduction. The DRP upheld the TPO's disallowance, stating that the procedure followed by the assessee for grossing up of interest was contrary to the agreement between the parties and the provisions of law.

Conclusion:

The appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were dismissed. The tribunal upheld the findings of the TPO and DRP on all issues, including the recharacterization of the assessee as a contract manufacturer, the determination of the arm's length value of management services as 'NIL', and the disallowance of grossed-up TDS on external commercial borrowings.

Order Pronounced:

The order was pronounced in the open court on 3rd November 2021.

---