ITAT remands royalty payment TP adjustment for fresh comparison with Advance Micronic Devices Ltd

The ITAT Bangalore remanded the TP adjustment issue regarding royalty payments to the AO/TPO for comparison of margins with comparable company M/s. Advance Micronic Devices Ltd. The Tribunal deleted TP adjustment in trading segment as assessee's margin exceeded the median margin of 10.87% from 8 comparables selected by TPO. For comparable selection, companies with different turnover categories and functional dissimilarities were to be excluded. Regarding lease payment deduction, the Tribunal allowed the claim as revenue expenditure, finding no colourable device by assessee who remained only a lessee under the agreement. TDS credit issue was remitted for verification.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Validity of Orders
2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments
3. Disallowance of Lease Payments
4. Credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS)
5. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Validity of Orders:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction and validity of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The appellant argued that the orders were against the law, facts, and principles of natural justice. The tribunal noted that these grounds were general and did not require specific adjudication.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments:
a. Royalty Payment Adjustment (Rs. 71,58,08,823/-):
The appellant paid royalty for support services provided by its group company. The tribunal noted that the TPO failed to find a comparable transaction or consider royalty as part of the trading segment, contrary to the tribunal's earlier directions. The tribunal directed the AO/TPO to consider royalty as part of the operating cost and verify if the appellant's margin was higher than the comparable company's margin.

b. Distribution Segment Adjustment (Rs. 1,74,43,26,236/-):
The appellant argued that the TPO made adjustments on domestic sales, which are not international transactions, and did not follow the tribunal's earlier directions to apply the Resale Price Method (RPM). The tribunal remitted the issue to the AO/TPO to follow the earlier tribunal orders and restrict adjustments to AE purchases.

c. Software Development Segment Adjustment (Rs. 84,58,60,310/-):
The appellant contested the selection of comparables and the application of turnover filters. The tribunal directed the AO/TPO to verify if the appellant's margin was higher than the margins of the comparables and, if so, to delete the TP adjustment.

3. Disallowance of Lease Payments (Rs. 18,69,97,941/-):
The AO disallowed the lease payments as capital expenditure. The appellant argued that the lease payments were revenue expenditure and consistent with past practice. The tribunal, following the decision in Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd vs JCIT, remitted the issue to the AO/TPO to verify the lease agreements and allow the lease payments as revenue expenditure if substantiated.

4. Credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) (Rs. 1,37,88,075/-):
The appellant claimed that the AO did not give credit for TDS. The tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify the records and give the correct TDS credit.

5. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:
The appellant contested the interest liabilities under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The tribunal noted that these interests are consequential and mandatory, to be computed accordingly.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal partly for statistical purposes, remitting several issues to the AO/TPO for reconsideration and verification in line with the tribunal's directions.

---