2019 (10) TMI 1609 - AT - Income Tax

TNMM transfer pricing study under s.92C upheld, selective CUP substitution rejected and TP adjustments overturned; corporate guarantee not international transaction

DCIT, Circle-6 (2), Kolkata Versus M/s Emami Limited

ITAT upheld the assessee's TNMM-based transfer pricing study, finding the TPO's selective substitution of the CUP method ad hoc and unsupported; the ... TP adjustment - MAM - substituting CUP Method instead of TNMM applied by the assessee - HELD THAT:- As in assessee own case [2018 (6) TMI 962 - ITAT KOLKATA] selective application of CUP Method by TPO is ad hoc, and without any cogent basis, hence the entire approach followed by the Ld. TPO in rejecting the TP study memorandum of assessee for application of TNMM method is unjustified. As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench, in assessee`s own case and there is no change in facts and law and the Revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings of the co-ordinate bench. Decided against revenue. Fees for Corporate Guarantee issued to AE @ 2.225% - HELD THAT:- As in assessee own case [2019 (5) TMI 1371 - ITAT KOLKATA] we note that the provision of corporate guarantee is not an international transaction. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe Tribunal considered two main issues in the appeal filed by the Revenue:i) Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) correctly applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method instead of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,79,08,930/-.ii) Whether the fee for the Corporate Guarantee issued to an Associate Enterprise (AE) should be considered an international transaction subject to arm's length pricing, resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 43,53,232/-.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISTransfer Pricing Adjustment: CUP Method vs. TNMMRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referred to Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, which outlines the methods for determining the arm's length price, including the CUP Method and TNMM. The Tribunal also considered previous decisions in the assessee's own case, where TNMM was upheld as the most appropriate method.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the need for a high degree of comparability when applying the CUP Method. It noted that the TPO failed to make necessary adjustments for differences in market and economic conditions between countries where the products were sold. The Tribunal found that the TPO ignored essential factors such as market preferences, customer profiles, and economic conditions, which materially affect pricing.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the TPO selectively compared only 56 out of 250 products and failed to benchmark the remaining products. The TPO also made arbitrary adjustments without empirical basis, such as a 3% revision for size differences, which lacked justification.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the TPO's application of the CUP Method was ad hoc and lacked a cogent basis. It affirmed that the assessee's consistent use of TNMM in previous years, which was accepted by the Revenue, should not be rejected without a change in facts or law.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the CUP Method was appropriate, citing the lack of adjustments for material differences and the absence of a change in circumstances from prior years.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the use of TNMM as the most appropriate method, dismissing the Revenue's grounds for appeal on this issue.Fees for Corporate GuaranteeRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the definition of 'international transaction' under section 92B of the Income Tax Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, which includes guarantees. It also reviewed judicial precedents that discuss whether corporate guarantees constitute international transactions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that extending a corporate guarantee is a shareholder activity and does not constitute an international transaction. It noted that such guarantees do not impact the profits, income, losses, or assets of the enterprise, and therefore, should not be subject to arm's length pricing.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal referred to the assessee's adjustment of 1% for the corporate guarantee as a measure to avoid litigation, which the TPO rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that the primary objective of the guarantee was to support the subsidiary, not to earn income.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from previous judgments, which held that corporate guarantees are shareholder activities outside the ambit of international transactions. It found no basis for the TPO's adjustment.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's reliance on amendments to the Income Tax Act, noting that the amendments did not alter the nature of corporate guarantees as shareholder activities.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the corporate guarantee does not constitute an international transaction, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal made the following significant holdings:- The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that the TNMM is the most appropriate method for determining arm's length pricing in the assessee's case, given the lack of adjustments for material differences under the CUP Method.- It established that corporate guarantees provided as shareholder activities do not constitute international transactions under section 92B of the Income Tax Act, thereby not requiring arm's length pricing.- The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in transfer pricing methods across assessment years unless a significant change in facts or law is demonstrated.- The Tribunal relied on previous judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various coordinate benches, to support its findings.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders on both issues.