TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Several of these issues were not pressed by the assessee during hearing and thus dismissed as not pressed, specifically the issues relating to the contract manufacturing characterization and aggregation of export transactions.
Issue-wise detailed analysis:
1. Determination of ALP of intra-group services (IT, export support, management services) paid to AE:
Legal framework and precedents: The ALP determination must follow the provisions of sections 92C and 92CA of the Income Tax Act, which prescribe the use of prescribed transfer pricing methods to determine ALP of international transactions. The Supreme Court decision in DIT (International Tax) vs. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. was discussed, which defines stewardship activities and their treatment. The Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. Lever India Exports Ltd. clarified that TPO's jurisdiction is limited to determining ALP by applying prescribed methods and cannot arbitrarily disallow expenses without proper application of transfer pricing methods. Tribunal decisions in Akzo Nobel India Ltd. and AT&S India Pvt. Ltd. were also relied upon.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The TPO and DRP treated the intra-group services as stewardship activities and determined their ALP at nil without applying any of the six prescribed transfer pricing methods. The Tribunal noted that the TPO did not produce any benchmarking analysis or comparable uncontrolled transactions to justify the nil valuation. The assessee demonstrated the nature of services, the need for such services, and the benefits derived, supported by agreements, cost allocation statements certified by independent professionals, and consistent practice within the group. The Tribunal held that the TPO's approach was without jurisdiction and contrary to the basic tenets of Indian transfer pricing regulations.
Key evidence and findings: The assessee presented detailed submissions on the nature and necessity of IT support services (including centralized IT infrastructure management and third-party vendor coordination), export support services (market analysis, product strategy, customer relationship), and management support services (quality management, internal audit, R&D support). The cost allocation was transparent and certified. The services were also provided to other group companies on similar terms. The Tribunal found no adverse comments from the TPO on the cost allocation or the nature of services.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that the TPO must determine ALP using prescribed methods and cannot reject the assessee's benchmarking without valid reasons or comparable data. The stewardship activity doctrine from Morgan Stanley was held inapplicable as the factual matrix differed and the issue was whether the services were stewardship activities, not whether such services created a permanent establishment. The Tribunal relied on binding precedents from its own Division Bench and High Court decisions to hold that the intra-group services were legitimate business expenses and the ALP adjustment at nil was unsustainable.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the services were stewardship activities and thus not chargeable, relying on Morgan Stanley and the TPO's findings. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the lack of application of transfer pricing methods and the evidence of benefit and necessity of services. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's failure to produce benchmarking data supporting the nil valuation.
Conclusion: The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment relating to intra-group services, holding that the payments were at arm's length and allowable. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to both AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16.
2. Transfer pricing adjustment on export of ferrites for consumption by AEs:
Legal framework and precedents: The CUP method is an accepted method for determining ALP under the Act. The DRP had accepted the CUP method for subsequent years. The issue was whether the TPO's adjustment based on TNMM was justified.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee sold ferrites to AEs for consumption and resale, as well as to domestic third parties. The assessee claimed that the CUP method applied to sales for consumption showed prices were at or above third-party prices. The TPO applied TNMM and made adjustments on the entire ferrite segment. The Tribunal noted the lack of quantitative details comparing export sales and domestic sales, which is critical to validate the comparability of margins.
Key evidence and findings: The assessee submitted that operating margins on sales to AEs were better than to third parties. However, no data was provided to show that quantities sold domestically and to AEs were comparable.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that without quantitative parity (+/-10%) between domestic and AE sales, the internal TNMM method could not be applied. The matter was remanded to the AO/TPO for detailed examination with opportunity to the assessee to produce relevant documents.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue supported the TPO's TNMM approach. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument on CUP method but required further factual verification.
Conclusion: The adjustment was set aside for statistical purposes and remanded for further inquiry.
3. Disallowance of provision for slow-moving and non-moving inventory:
Legal framework and precedents: Accounting Standard 2 (AS-2) issued by ICAI governs valuation of inventories and provisions for obsolescence. Provisions made on scientific basis for diminution in value of inventory are allowable business expenses.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO treated the provision as contingent and disallowed it. The DRP directed the AO to examine the details and consider the correct figure. The Tribunal noted that the assessee followed AS-2 and maintained provisions based on a scientific approach.
Key evidence and findings: The assessee provided details of inventory and justification for the provision. The AO had no specific adverse findings against the scientific basis of the provision.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the provision was a legitimate business loss and allowable as revenue expenditure.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue relied on case law to argue that mere provision without basis is not deductible. The Tribunal found the assessee's approach justified and supported by accounting standards.
Conclusion: The disallowance was deleted and the provision allowed as deduction.
4. Disallowance of capital work-in-progress (CWIP) written off relating to abandoned project:
Legal framework and precedents: The deductibility of written-off CWIP depends on whether the expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. Jurisprudence including Binani Cement Ltd. vs. CIT and other High Court and Tribunal decisions hold that such write-offs may be allowed as business losses if linked to business operations.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO and DRP disallowed the claim for lack of details and treated it as capital expenditure. The assessee claimed the write-off was due to obsolescence and linked to business operations.
Key evidence and findings: The assessee failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence before the lower authorities to establish the nature of the loss as revenue.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence and restored the matter to the AO/TPO for examination after providing opportunity to the assessee to submit relevant details.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued capital nature and lack of details. The Tribunal took a neutral view pending further evidence.
Conclusion: The issue was restored for fresh adjudication.
5. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c): The assessee challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the grounds relating to penalty, consistent with the deletion of transfer pricing adjustments.
6. Application of 3% variation/deduction under proviso to section 92C(2): This ground was raised but not specifically adjudicated in detail, presumably subsumed in other findings.
Significant holdings and core principles established:
"The jurisdiction of the TPO is specific and limited, i.e., to determine the arm's length price of an international transaction by applying any of the methods prescribed under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 92C of the I.T. Act, being the most appropriate method. However, the TPO, in the instant case, determined the arm's length price of the international transaction at Nil without applying any of the methods prescribed under sub- sections (1) and (2) of section 92C of the I.T. Act. We find that the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. Hence, we find that the aforesaid action of the TPO (that is, the determination of the ALP of the international transaction under consideration at nil value) is without jurisdiction and it goes against the basic tenet of the Indian Transfer Pricing Regulation."
"The term 'stewardship activity' has not been defined by the I.T. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term 'stewardship activity' in the matter of DIT (International Tax) vs. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. However, the ruling in the aforesaid decision, in our view, has no application to the facts of the present case. In the case of DIT (International Tax) vs. Morgan Stanley (supra), firstly, the observations were rendered in the context of an admitted factual position by the applicant before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) that certain services were in the nature of stewardship services. Secondly, the observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to whether stewardship activity rendered by the holding company for the Indian subsidiary in India would constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) within the meaning of Article 5(2)(1) of the DTAA between India and USA. However, in the present case, the factual dispute is as to whether the IT services received by the assessee under the aforesaid agreement was in the nature of stewardship services or not. To this extent, we conclude that the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) is not relevant to the present case."
"The essence is that a businessman himself is the best judge in determining the reasonableness / usefulness / benefit of an expenditure which is wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business. The Revenue has no role to play in determining the reasonableness / usefulness / benefit of a business expenditure."
Final determinations on each issue include:
TaxTMI 
