2023 (6) TMI 614 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal excludes comparables, adjusts margin, partly allows appeal in transfer pricing dispute.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to exclude certain comparables due to functional dissimilarities and past precedents, resulting in the ... TP adjustment - international transaction undertaken with overseas Associated Enterprise (AE) - Comparable selection - assessee is a resident corporate entity stated to be engaged in Airport Ground Handling Services for Lufthansa Airlines, providing services in pursuance to an agreement executed with the concerned AE - HELD THAT:- Exclude Container Corporation of India from the list of comparables as functionally dissimilar with that of assessee. Sanco Trans Limited - As no segmental accounts prepared by M/s Sanco Trans has earned total operating revenue of Rs.4296.36 lakh and total employee cost incurred is 511.96 lakhs which in ratio terms is 11.91%. This shows that this is also not a service-oriented company. Thus we hold that Sanco Trans Limited cannot be treated as comparable to the assessee. Issues:The appeal challenges the final assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2010-11, specifically regarding the addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment for international transactions with the overseas Associated Enterprise (AE).Transfer Pricing Adjustment Issue:The dispute revolves around the addition of Rs.2,22,73,117/- as a transfer pricing adjustment for the international transaction concerning the provision of ground handling services. The assessee, a resident corporate entity engaged in Airport Ground Handling Services for Lufthansa Airlines, benchmarked the transaction using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and internal Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). However, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) disagreed with the benchmarking and proposed an upward adjustment to the Arm's Length Price (ALP) due to differences in profit margins with selected comparables.Objection to Selected Comparables:The appellant contested the selection of two comparables by the TPO, Container Corporation of India and Sanco Trans Limited. Regarding Container Corporation of India, it was argued that the company's functional dissimilarity and substantial differences in turnover, employee cost ratio, and nature of revenue earned warranted its exclusion as a comparable. The Tribunal's past decisions in the appellant's case supported the exclusion of this company. Similarly, objections were raised against Sanco Trans Limited, emphasizing its business segment focused on passive income and dissimilarity in revenue composition, leading to its exclusion as a comparable in previous assessments.Tribunal's Decision on Comparables:The Tribunal, based on previous rulings in the appellant's cases for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, directed the Assessing Officer to exclude both Container Corporation of India and Sanco Trans Limited from the list of comparables due to functional dissimilarities and past precedents. The Tribunal's consistent stance on these comparables supported the appellant's arguments for their exclusion in the current assessment.Conclusion:With the exclusion of the disputed comparables, the appellant's margin aligned within an acceptable range compared to other selected comparables, requiring no further adjustment. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed based on the Tribunal's direction to exclude the unsuitable comparables, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant.Note: The names of the parties involved in the judgment have been excluded to maintain privacy.