DIN compliance and make-available test defeated transfer pricing adjustment and TDS disallowance on management fee payments.

A transfer pricing order issued on 31 October 2019 without a mandatory Document Identification Number was treated as invalid under the CBDT circular, and the later order of 1 November 2019 could not cure the defect or survive the prescribed limitation period. On the management fee issue, the treaty-based make-available test was not satisfied because the services were routine management and administrative support and did not transfer technical knowledge, skill, experience, know-how or processes for independent future use. The payments were therefore not fees for technical services, and disallowance for failure to deduct tax at source was unsustainable. The additions from both the transfer pricing adjustment and the TDS disallowance were deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing order was invalid for want of a Document Identification Number and whether the later order was barred by limitation under the transfer pricing provisions; (ii) Whether the management fee payments were fees for technical services so as to require deduction of tax at source and attract disallowance.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing order was invalid for want of a Document Identification Number and whether the later order was barred by limitation under the transfer pricing provisions

Analysis: The CBDT circular required income-tax communications issued on or after 1 October 2019 to bear a DIN, subject only to specified exceptions and prescribed approval and endorsement for manual issue. The order dated 31 October 2019 was found to have been issued manually without complying with those requirements, and therefore it was treated as invalid and deemed never to have been issued. The later order dated 1 November 2019 could not substitute the earlier order, and on the facts it was also beyond the prescribed time limit under the transfer pricing limitation framework.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing order was invalid and the adjustment made thereunder could not survive.

Issue (ii): Whether the management fee payments were fees for technical services so as to require deduction of tax at source and attract disallowance

Analysis: The relevant test under the applicable treaty provisions was whether technical knowledge, skill, experience, know-how or processes were made available to the recipient so that it could apply them independently in future. On the services described in the agreement, the payments represented routine management and administrative services, and there was no imparting of technical knowledge that remained with the recipient after the arrangement ended. The make-available condition was therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The payments were not fees for technical services and the disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The additions arising from the transfer pricing adjustment and the TDS disallowance were deleted, resulting in full relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer pricing order issued in violation of the mandatory DIN circular requirements is invalid, and payments qualify as fees for technical services only when technical knowledge or skills are actually made available so that the recipient can use them independently.

---