"Tribunal Rules in Favor of Assessee in Transfer Pricing Dispute" 'sLengthRange

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, a joint venture between Diesel SPA and Reliance Brands Ltd, in a transfer pricing dispute. It directed the deletion of adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for royalty and design fees payments, finding them to be within the arm's length range. The Tribunal upheld the adoption of Resale Price Method (RPM) over Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking international transactions, rejecting the TPO's arguments. The Assessing Officer's appeals for the assessment years were dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision for one year was applied to the subsequent year as well.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment of royalty payment to AE.
2. Adjustment of design fees payment to AE.
3. Adoption of Resale Price Method (RPM) versus Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking international transactions involving purchase of merchandise and samples.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Adjustment of Royalty Payment to AE:
The assessee, a joint venture between Diesel SPA (Italy) and Reliance Brands Ltd, paid a 5% royalty to Diesel SPA for exclusive rights and technical know-how. The TPO adjusted the royalty to 3.31% based on comparables (Donakaran, Victorinox, Rampage, Bill Blass). The CIT(A) included "Guess" (7%) in the comparables, adjusting the royalty to 5.25%. The Tribunal found the inclusion of Rampage and Bill Blass, which had guaranteed minimum royalty clauses, inappropriate as these clauses materially differ from the assessee’s agreement. Excluding these comparables, the Tribunal determined the royalty paid by the assessee was within the arm’s length range, directing deletion of the ALP adjustment.

2. Adjustment of Design Fees Payment to AE:
The assessee paid Rs. 14,00,761 as design fees to Diesel SPA, which the TPO considered part of the royalty agreement, leading to an ALP adjustment. The CIT(A) upheld this adjustment. The Tribunal, however, noted that even if the design fees were included in the royalty payment, the total would still be below the 5.25% arm’s length price established. Hence, the ALP adjustment was deemed legally unsustainable and was deleted.

3. Adoption of RPM versus TNMM for Benchmarking International Transactions:
The assessee used RPM to benchmark transactions involving merchandise purchases from Diesel SPA, showing a gross profit margin of 52.54% against a comparable mean of 32.16%. The TPO rejected RPM, adopting TNMM, arguing that the assessee’s marketing efforts and high-risk distribution rendered RPM inappropriate. The CIT(A) reversed this, citing the Bombay High Court’s decision in L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd., which upheld RPM for distributors reselling goods without value addition. The Tribunal agreed, noting no substantial value addition by the assessee and that marketing expenses did not affect gross profit margins. The Tribunal found RPM to be the most appropriate method, affirming the CIT(A)’s decision and dismissing the Assessing Officer’s appeal.

Separate Judgments:
The Tribunal’s decision for the assessment year 2012-13 was applied mutatis mutandis to the assessment year 2013-14, resulting in the dismissal of the Assessing Officer’s appeal for that year as well. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal, directing deletion of ALP adjustments for royalty and design fees, and upheld the CIT(A)’s adoption of RPM for benchmarking international transactions, dismissing the Assessing Officer’s appeals for both assessment years.

---