Transfer pricing adjustment deleted as assessee's 6.12% profit margin exceeded comparable companies' 5.41% average under TNMM

The ITAT Mumbai upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of transfer pricing adjustment where assessee's profit level indicator (PLI) of 6.12% exceeded comparable companies' average PLI of 5.41% under Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). Despite AO's objection to inclusion of low-margin comparables (1-2%), ITAT found no functional incomparability established. The assessee had adopted TNMM as most appropriate method in subsequent years, validating CIT(A)'s approach. Revenue's challenge regarding fresh comparables introduced before CIT(A) was rejected as functional comparability remained intact. No arm's length price adjustment warranted when assessee's margins exceeded comparable range.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to transfer pricing adjustment, adoption of the most appropriate method, introduction of fresh comparables, removal of filters, and reintroduction of comparables.

Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The appeal was filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The main issue raised was regarding the rejection of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) by the TPO and the direction to adopt the Resale Price Method (RPM). The CIT (A) erred in holding RPM as the most appropriate method without appreciating the functional differences between the assessee and the comparables. The TPO had rejected the RPM due to the intensive marketing and distribution functions performed by the assessee, leading to the adoption of TNMM. The CIT (A) also introduced fresh comparables without offering an opportunity to the TPO, which was challenged by the AO.

Introduction of Fresh Comparables:
The CIT (A) accepted new comparables introduced by the assessee without detailed reasons, which was contested by the AO. The introduction of fresh comparables at the appellate stage without considering the TPO's filters and comments was a point of contention. The CIT (A) erred in accepting the new search data without proper justification, as it could lead to an endless exercise of bringing the ALP within a comparable range.

Removal of Filters and Reintroduction of Comparables:
The CIT (A) removed the filter regarding the AMP to sales ratio without appreciating the marketing and distribution functions performed by the assessee. Additionally, the reintroduction of comparables and application of filters by the CIT (A) were challenged by the AO, who argued that the comparables were not functionally comparable with the assessee.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the issues of transfer pricing adjustment, adoption of the most appropriate method, introduction of fresh comparables, removal of filters, and reintroduction of comparables. The CIT (A) upheld the Resale Price Method as the most appropriate method, considering the subsequent adoption of TNMM by the assessee. The introduction of fresh comparables and removal of filters were also discussed, with the final decision confirming the CIT (A)'s order and dismissing the AO's appeal.

---