Tribunal remands transfer pricing issues for reassessment, adjusts interest rates, and partially allows appeal.

The tribunal remanded the main issues back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Assessing Officer (AO) for reconsideration, directing the use of internal comparables for Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) analysis and verification of R&D expenditure. The tribunal upheld the adjustment for interest on delayed receivables but directed a lower rate for computation. The issues concerning interest computation under sections 234A and 234B were considered consequential. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-consideration of the internal TNMM analysis.
2. Rejection of comparables by TPO and DRP.
3. Adjustment for interest on delayed receivables.
4. Denial of deduction of R&D expenditure under section 35(1)(i) or 37(1).
5. Computation of interest under sections 234A and 234B.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-consideration of Internal TNMM Analysis:
The appellant argued that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred by not considering the internal Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) analysis. The appellant compared the net operating margin from Associated Enterprises (AEs) with third-party customers, which showed a higher margin for AE transactions. The DRP directed the TPO to verify whether the segmental financials submitted were audited. However, the TPO did not follow this direction. The appellant cited previous judgments, including their own case for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15, where internal comparables were preferred over external ones. The tribunal directed the TPO to carry out a detailed analysis using internal comparables if sufficient data is available.

2. Rejection of Comparables by TPO and DRP:
The appellant contested the rejection of several comparables by the TPO and DRP on various grounds, such as functional differences and turnover filters. The tribunal noted that the TPO had rejected the internal TNMM analysis and instead used external comparables from the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, which the appellant argued were not appropriate. The tribunal remanded the issue back to the TPO for de novo consideration, directing the TPO to use internal comparables if sufficient data is available.

3. Adjustment for Interest on Delayed Receivables:
The TPO imputed interest on delayed receivables from AEs, treating them as unsecured loans and using LIBOR plus 450 basis points for computation. The appellant argued that outstanding receivables should not be considered as international transactions and cited various judicial precedents to support their claim. The tribunal upheld that interest on receivables is a separate international transaction but directed the TPO to consider a lower rate of LIBOR plus 350 basis points for computation, remanding the issue back to the TPO.

4. Denial of Deduction of R&D Expenditure:
The appellant claimed a deduction for R&D expenditure under section 35(2AB), but the AO disallowed Rs. 3,86,332/- not approved by the DSIR. The appellant argued that this amount should be allowed under sections 35(1)(i) or 37(1) as it was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for verification of the nature of the expenditure and directed the AO to allow the actual expenditure if it qualifies under section 37(1).

5. Computation of Interest under Sections 234A and 234B:
The appellant contested the computation of interest under sections 234A and 234B, arguing that there was no delay in furnishing the return of income. The tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue but noted that it would be consequential to the main issues being remanded back to the AO/TPO.

Conclusion:
The tribunal remanded the main issues back to the TPO and AO for de novo consideration, directing them to use internal comparables for TNMM analysis and to verify the nature of R&D expenditure. The tribunal upheld the adjustment for interest on delayed receivables but directed a lower rate for computation. The issues related to the computation of interest under sections 234A and 234B were noted as consequential. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---