ITAT Mumbai deletes transfer pricing adjustments favoring internal TNMM over external analysis under Section 92C

ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee on transfer pricing adjustments. The tribunal held that internal TNMM analysis should be preferred over external TNMM when available, directing deletion of TP adjustment for management consultancy services. For regional coordination services, the tribunal found TPO erred in excluding Vatika Marketing Limited while including similar company Lancor Maintenance Services Ltd., directing inclusion of Vatika Marketing. TP adjustments for license fees and IT cost allocation were deleted as TPO failed to adopt prescribed methods under Section 92C. Interest under Section 244A was allowed following previous tribunal decisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of arm's length price for management consultancy services.
2. Adjustment of arm's length price for payment of license fees for time and billing software.
3. Adjustment of arm's length price for regional coordination services.
4. Adjustment of arm's length price for information technology cost allocation.
5. Adjustment of arm's length price for reimbursements paid.
6. Short-granting of TDS credit.
7. Charging of interest u/s 234B.
8. Charging of interest u/s 234D.
9. Short-granting of interest u/s 244A.
10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c).

Summary:

1. Determination of arm's length price for management consultancy services:
The assessee contested the adjustment of Rs. 7,12,29,302 made by the AO/TPO under the directions of the DRP. The TPO rejected the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method used by the assessee and applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) instead. The TPO selected comparables and determined a mean margin of 37.21%. The Tribunal found the TPO's rejection of CUP and application of TNMM erroneous and directed the AO to delete the TP adjustment, allowing Ground No. 1.

2. Adjustment of arm's length price for payment of license fees for time and billing software:
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years, where it was held that the TPO did not adopt any prescribed method for determining ALP. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to delete the TP adjustment, allowing Ground No. 2.

3. Adjustment of arm's length price for regional coordination services:
The TPO excluded certain comparables and included others, leading to an adjustment of Rs. 29,96,502. The Tribunal found that the TPO erred in excluding Vatika Marketing Limited while including Lancor Maintenance & Services Ltd., which engaged in similar business activities. The Tribunal directed the inclusion of Vatika Marketing Limited for ALP determination, allowing Ground No. 3.

4. Adjustment of arm's length price for information technology cost allocation:
The Tribunal followed the Coordinate Bench's decision in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years, where it was held that the TPO did not adopt any prescribed method for determining ALP. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to delete the TP adjustment, allowing Ground No. 4.

5. Adjustment of arm's length price for reimbursements paid:
The Tribunal found the reasoning for this adjustment identical to that of Grounds No. 2 and 4. Following the decision of the Coordinate Bench, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to delete the TP adjustment, allowing Ground No. 5.

6. Short-granting of TDS credit:
Ground No. 6 was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed as not pressed.

7. Charging of interest u/s 234B:
Ground No. 7 was found to be consequential and was not separately adjudicated.

8. Charging of interest u/s 234D:
Ground No. 8 was found to be consequential and was not separately adjudicated.

9. Short-granting of interest u/s 244A:
The Tribunal followed the Coordinate Bench's decision in the assessee's own case for the previous assessment year, directing the AO to consider extending the benefit to the assessee up to the date of actual receipt of the refund, allowing Ground No. 9.

10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal did not separately adjudicate this ground, leaving it open without adjudication due to pending litigation in a related case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, with specific directions to the AO/TPO to delete the TP adjustments and reconsider interest calculations. The additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order was left open without adjudication.

---