TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal directs fresh Transfer Pricing study for marketing service provider, emphasizing consistency and addressing various issues</h1> <h3>Parametric Technology (India) Private Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12 (2), Bangalore</h3> Parametric Technology (India) Private Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12 (2), Bangalore - [2022] 94 ITR (Trib) 398 (ITAT [Bang]) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the Assessing Officer's (AO) order.2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment.3. Re-characterization of the business profile.4. Segmentation of revenue/costs.5. Use of data for Transfer Pricing assessment.6. Application of multiple year/prior year data.7. Rejection of Transfer Pricing documentation.8. Selection of comparables.9. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions.10. Risk adjustments for limited-risk nature of services.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the AO's Order:The assessee challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle 12(2), Bangalore, claiming it was 'bad in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be quashed.'2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:The AO and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) adjustment of INR 3,45,45,100 to the transfer price concerning the assessee's contract marketing support services provided to its Associated Enterprises (AEs).3. Re-characterization of the Business Profile:The TPO re-characterized the assessee’s business profile from a contract marketing service provider to a full-fledged technical/business support service provider. The Tribunal found this re-characterization inappropriate, noting that the assessee had consistently been treated as a marketing services provider in previous years, and there was no substantial evidence to justify the change. The Tribunal vacated the findings of the revenue authorities on this count, directing the TPO to treat the assessee as a full-fledged marketing service provider and re-conduct the Transfer Pricing study.4. Segmentation of Revenue/Costs:The TPO segmented the total revenue/costs based on employee costs incurred for marketing-related and technical-related personnel, which was upheld by the DRP. The Tribunal found this segmentation arbitrary and directed a fresh TP study.5. Use of Data for Transfer Pricing Assessment:The TPO used data available at the time of the Transfer Pricing assessment proceedings, which was not available to the assessee when preparing the TP documentation. The Tribunal did not specifically adjudicate on this issue due to the remand for a fresh TP study.6. Application of Multiple Year/Prior Year Data:The TPO disregarded the application of multiple year/prior year data used by the assessee, insisting on using current year data for comparable companies. This issue was also remanded for reconsideration in the fresh TP study.7. Rejection of Transfer Pricing Documentation:The TPO rejected the TP documentation and comparability analysis undertaken by the assessee, conducting an arbitrary comparability analysis. The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-evaluate this in the fresh TP study.8. Selection of Comparables:The TPO included/excluded various companies as comparables based on functional similarity, which was contested by the assessee. The Tribunal directed a fresh TP study, requiring the TPO to reconsider the selection of comparables appropriately.9. Non-compliance with DRP Directions:The AO did not give effect to certain directions of the DRP, including the correct computation of operating markup on cost and granting working capital adjustment. This issue was also remanded for reconsideration.10. Risk Adjustments for Limited-Risk Nature of Services:The AO and DRP ignored the limited-risk nature of the marketing and sales support services provided by the assessee, failing to provide appropriate adjustments for differences in working capital and risks. This was directed to be reconsidered in the fresh TP study.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal partly for statistical purposes, directing the TPO to carry out a fresh TP study treating the assessee as a full-fledged marketing service provider and to reconsider all related issues accordingly. The judgment emphasized the need for consistency in the assessee’s business profile across different assessment years.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
