Tribunal Ruling on Transfer Pricing Methods & Comparable Selection

The Tribunal upheld the application of Internal Resale Price Method (RPM) for the Trading segment, citing Delhi High Court's ruling. Electronica Machine Tools Ltd. was included as a comparable for the Manufacturing segment despite losses in the relevant year, following Bombay High Court precedents. The adjustment for higher Customs duty was rejected, and project expenses were deemed operating costs. Consultancy charges exclusion was remanded for further examination. The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection. Judgment was issued on 28th April 2022.

---

---

Issues:
I. Trading Segment
II. Manufacturing Segment

I. Trading Segment:
The Revenue contested the adoption of Internal Resale Price Method (RPM) by the assessee for benchmarking the 'Trading segment.' The TPO recommended a transfer pricing adjustment, but the ld. CIT(A) approved the application of Internal RPM. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, citing the Delhi High Court's ruling that RPM is appropriate when goods are resold without value addition. The Tribunal emphasized that the method's selection, not its application, was the issue.

II. Manufacturing Segment:
The Revenue challenged the inclusion of Electronica Machine Tools Ltd. as a comparable by the ld. CIT(A). The TPO excluded it due to losses in the relevant year, but the Tribunal supported its inclusion based on previous and subsequent profitable years. Citing Bombay High Court precedents, the Tribunal ruled that a single year loss does not disqualify a company from comparability analysis. The ld. CIT(A)'s decision to include the company was upheld.

The Revenue also contested the adjustment for higher Customs duty paid by the assessee. The Tribunal rejected the claim, stating that the higher cost due to increased imports did not necessitate an adjustment since the rate of Customs duty was not higher than comparables. The ld. CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the operating cost base was overturned.

The assessee's Cross Objection related to Project expenses treated as operating costs in the Manufacturing segment. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the expenses were revenue in nature and related to an already operational unit. The contention that the expenses were non-operating was rejected.

Additionally, the assessee raised a ground regarding the exclusion of consultancy charges from the total AE cost. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to examine this claim in fresh proceedings related to the Manufacturing segment's ALP determination.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee. The judgment was pronounced on 28th April, 2022.

---