2023 (3) TMI 455 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal partly allowed on transfer pricing adjustments for technical know-how fees & expenses markup.

UPS Express Pvt. Ltd. [Formerly known as UPS Jetair Express P. Ltd.] Versus The DCIT-11 (1) (2), Mumbai  

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, granting relief on transfer pricing adjustments for technical know-how fees and the imputation of ... TP adjustment in respect of Technical know-how fees paid by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise ('AE') - HELD THAT:- We find that the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2013-14 [2019 (9) TMI 1342 - ITAT, MUMBAI] TPO having not determined the ALP in conformity with the statutory provision and in the process having failed to demonstrate that ALP shown by the assessee is incorrect, the contentions of the Id. DR to restore the issue to the file of the Id. TPO for fresh determination of the ALP, is unacceptable. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that there is no provision made in the statute empowering the Id. TPO for determining the ALP of a particular international transaction at Nil without resorting to any methods prescribed. Grounds of appeal no.1 of the assessee is allowed. Incorrect computation of mark-up on recovery of expenses by the appellant from it’s AE - HELD THAT:- As in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2013-14 [2019 (9) TMI 1342 - ITAT, MUMBAI]direct the Ld. A.O./TPO to delete the ALP adjustment made on recovery of expenses. Issues Involved:1. Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of Technical know-how fees.2. Incorrect imputation of mark-up on recovery of expenses.3. Transactions with JV entities.4. Initiation of penalty proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment in Respect of Technical Know-how Fees:The assessee company, engaged in International Integrated transportation services, filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 43,08,88,530/-. The A.O. made an addition of Rs. 12,93,94,377/- towards transfer pricing adjustment. The DRP upheld the determination of the Comparable Uncontrolled Prices (CUP) of the technical know-how fees at NIL, consistent with previous years. The Tribunal, however, noted that the Coordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2013-14 had allowed the claim of the assessee, stating that the TPO failed to determine the ALP in conformity with statutory provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the grounds of appeal No.1 of the assessee, following the precedent set in the A.Y. 2013-14.2. Incorrect Imputation of Mark-up on Recovery of Expenses:The DRP observed that the issue of mark-up on recovery of expenses had been a consistent subject matter of dispute in earlier AYs, and upheld the TPO's determination of a mark-up of 1.31%. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2013-14, directed the A.O./TPO to delete the ALP adjustment made on recovery of expenses. The Tribunal allowed the grounds of appeal No.2 of the assessee, following the precedent set in the A.Y. 2013-14.3. Transactions with JV Entities:The assessee argued that transactions with JV entities are inherently at arm's length due to the equity stake held by independent parties. However, during the course of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee did not press this ground of appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed.4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings:The assessee contested the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270(A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis or conclusion on this issue within the provided text.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, primarily granting relief on the issues of transfer pricing adjustments concerning technical know-how fees and the imputation of mark-up on recovery of expenses, following the precedents set in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2013-14. The ground regarding transactions with JV entities was dismissed as not pressed, and the initiation of penalty proceedings was not conclusively addressed.