2021 (11) TMI 1217 - AT - Income Tax

Trading segment analysis excludes comparable company due to different product ranges failing functional asset risk test

Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd. Versus National E-Assessment Centre,

Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd. Versus National E-Assessment Centre, - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core issues considered in this judgment revolve around the bifurcation of business segments for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis. The primary legal questions include:1. Whether the assessee's operations should be bifurcated into 'manufacturing' and 'trading' segments, or considered as a single consolidated business segment.2. Whether the assessee's activities constitute manufacturing or merely processing and distribution.3. The appropriateness of including SK Pipe Fitting Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable for the trading segment.4. The correct approach for working capital adjustments, specifically whether to apply the Prime Lending Rate (PLR) or the Base Rate for economic adjustments.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISBifurcation of Business SegmentsThe Tribunal considered the legal framework under the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly the provisions related to transfer pricing and the determination of arm's length price. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had bifurcated the assessee's operations into manufacturing and trading segments. The assessee argued that its operations should not be bifurcated as they are consolidated under value-added trading of steel coils.The Court examined the financial records, which showed distinct revenue streams from finished goods and traded goods. The presence of excise duty payments, consumption of fuel and power, and depreciation on plant and machinery indicated substantial manufacturing activities. Consequently, the Court upheld the TPO's bifurcation of the business segments, affirming that the assessee engaged in both manufacturing and trading activities.Characterization of Activities as Manufacturing or ProcessingThe assessee contended that its operations involved minimal processing activities, such as slitting and cutting steel coils, and did not amount to full-fledged manufacturing. The Tribunal reviewed the nature of the operations, noting that slitting involves complex mechanization and automation akin to manufacturing processes. The deployment of significant plant and machinery supported the view that the activities were manufacturing in nature. Thus, the Court concluded that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities, rejecting the argument that it was merely a distributor.Inclusion of SK Pipe Fitting Pvt. Ltd. as a ComparableThe assessee challenged the inclusion of SK Pipe Fitting Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable, arguing that it was engaged in the manufacture of rubber products, which are not comparable to steel products. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the functional, asset, and risk (FAR) profiles of the two companies were not sufficiently similar. Consequently, the Court directed the exclusion of SK Pipe Fitting Pvt. Ltd. from the list of comparables.Working Capital AdjustmentsThe Tribunal considered the method for calculating working capital adjustments, specifically whether to use the Prime Lending Rate (PLR) or the Base Rate. The DRP had directed the use of PLR for adjustments, but the Tribunal referred to RBI guidelines, which indicated that the Base Rate system enhances transparency in lending rates. The Court concluded that the Base Rate should be applied for economic adjustments, aligning with the RBI's directive for transparency and consistency in lending practices.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal established several core principles and made final determinations on each issue:- The bifurcation of business segments into manufacturing and trading was upheld based on the evidence of distinct financial activities and the nature of operations.- The characterization of the assessee's activities as manufacturing was affirmed, given the mechanized and automated nature of the processes involved.- SK Pipe Fitting Pvt. Ltd. was excluded as a comparable due to dissimilarities in product lines and FAR profiles.- The Base Rate was determined to be the appropriate benchmark for working capital adjustments, promoting transparency and consistency in line with RBI guidelines.In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, affirming the bifurcation of business segments and the characterization of activities as manufacturing, while directing adjustments in the comparables and economic adjustments based on the Base Rate.