2023 (10) TMI 561 - HC - Income Tax

Court directs reconsideration of Tribunal's exclusion of comparable in transfer pricing dispute, citing incorrect facts & lack of discussion.

UOP India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9

The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision to exclude Onward Technologies Limited (OTL) as a comparable in a transfer pricing dispute, finding the ... Scope and ambit of Tribunal's power u/s 254 - Tribunal excluding the comparable “OTL” while benchmarking the engineering, technical and inspection segment, in the course of exercising its powers u/s 254 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has only recorded the contentions of both sides and perhaps, proceeded based on incorrect facts. The comparable OTL, according to the counsel for the parties, was indeed included in the Transfer Pricing Study Report. It is also not in dispute that the TPO had accepted OTL as a comparable. The Tribunal, in our view, without discussing the scope and ambit of its power u/s 254, has proceeded to issue operative directions, which, inter alia, excluded OTL as a comparable. Given this position, counsel for the parties say, and something that we tend to agree with, that the matter needs a relook by the Tribunal, with regard to the scope and ambit of its power u/s 254 - Issue answered in favour of the appellant/assessee for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:The issue involved in this case is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself on facts and in law in excluding the comparable Onward Technologies Limited while benchmarking the engineering, technical, and inspection segment under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Summary:Transfer Pricing Dispute:The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had initially accepted Onward Technologies Limited (OTL) as a comparable in the appellant/assessee's transfer pricing study report. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later excluded two other comparables, namely L&T Ramboll Engineering Consulting Services and Mitcon Consultancy Services, leading to appeals by both the appellant/assessee and the revenue before the Tribunal.Tribunal's Directions:The Tribunal, in its order, excluded several comparables, including OTL, from consideration in the transfer pricing analysis. The Tribunal entertained additional grounds raised by the revenue, arguing for the exclusion of OTL based on functional dissimilarity, along with other comparables.Legal Arguments:The appellant's counsel argued that once the TPO accepted OTL as a comparable, it should not have been excluded by the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act. On the other hand, the revenue's counsel contended that the Tribunal had the power to exclude OTL based on disputed facts and additional grounds raised during the proceedings.Judicial Decision:The Court noted that the Tribunal's exclusion of OTL as a comparable was based on incorrect facts and without a proper discussion on the scope of its powers under Section 254. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue, focusing on the scope and ambit of its powers under Section 254 before reaching a conclusion on the validity of OTL's exclusion as a comparable.Conclusion:The question of law was answered in favor of the appellant/assessee for statistical purposes, and the appeal was disposed of with directions for the Tribunal to reexamine the issue in light of the Court's observations regarding the scope of its powers under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.