TP adjustments limited to AE transactions only, trading segment profitability considered separately

ITAT Bangalore held that TP adjustments should be restricted only to AE transactions, not all transactions, following Bombay HC precedent upheld by SC. On comparability, TCIL's trading segment profitability to be considered separately, with remand for fresh consideration regarding persistent loss-making status. Zicom Electronics and Adtech Systems deemed functionally comparable as trading companies. Commission income excluded from trading segment due to unclear service nature. GSMAF/MF expenses treated as operating costs allocated per turnover ratio. Section 14A disallowance restricted to 10% of exempt dividend income. DDT and education cess issues left open and dismissed respectively.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments in Trading Segment
2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments for Global Sales and Marketing Activities Fees (GSMAF)
3. Transfer Pricing Adjustments for Management Fees (MF)
4. Disallowance under Section 14A
5. Computation of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C
6. Penalty Proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c)
7. Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT)
8. Deduction of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess under Section 37(1)

Summary of Judgment:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments in Trading Segment:

The Tribunal addressed multiple issues regarding the transfer pricing adjustments in the trading segment. The appellant argued that the DRP unjustifiably withdrew proportionate adjustments granted by the TPO, contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The appellant also contested the exclusion of Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. (TCIL) as a comparable, the inclusion of Adtech Systems Ltd. and Zicom Electronic Security Systems Ltd., and the incorrect exclusion of commission income and reversal of provisions for doubtful debts from operational income. The Tribunal held that the application of arm's length price should be restricted only to AE transactions and not to all transactions, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The Tribunal remitted the issue of TCIL's comparability to the TPO/AO for de novo consideration and upheld the inclusion of Adtech Systems Ltd. and Zicom Electronic Security Systems Ltd. as comparables.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments for Global Sales and Marketing Activities Fees (GSMAF):

The Tribunal noted that the issue of GSMAF has been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred towards GSMAF should be treated as operating cost and allocated in the ratio of the turnover of other international transactions for determining the ALP under TNMM analysis. This decision was based on the Tribunal's and the Karnataka High Court's rulings in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11.

3. Transfer Pricing Adjustments for Management Fees (MF):

Similar to GSMAF, the Tribunal held that the payment towards Management Fees should be considered as operating cost and allocated in the ratio of the turnover of other international transactions. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 and subsequent years.

4. Disallowance under Section 14A:

The Tribunal noted that there was no opening and closing balance of investments made by the assessee. The AO had applied Rule 8D for calculation of disallowance and calculated a total disallowance of Rs. 22,91,614. The Tribunal, following its decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15, restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to 10% of exempt dividend income.

5. Computation of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:

The Tribunal held that the issues regarding interest under Sections 234B and 234C are consequential and did not provide specific details on these grounds.

6. Penalty Proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c):

The Tribunal did not provide specific details on the penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c).

7. Refund of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT):

The Tribunal noted that the issue of DDT paid to non-residents is covered by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. The appellant reserved its right to contest this issue before the appropriate forum, and the Tribunal left this issue open.

8. Deduction of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess under Section 37(1):

The Tribunal dismissed this ground, noting the retrospective amendment to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, which clarified that education cess cannot be claimed as a business expenditure. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the revenue against the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd.

Conclusion:

The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed, with specific directions provided for each issue.

---