Internal TNMM, receivable interest benchmarking, and treaty characterization shaped mixed transfer pricing and withholding outcomes.

Internal TNMM may be relevant where an assessee renders similar IT-enabled services to AE and non-AE segments, and benchmarking should focus on AE operating profit and cost data; the matter was remanded for reconsideration on that basis. Trade receivables from AEs can be separately benchmarked as an international transaction, and foreign-currency interest was directed to be computed using LIBOR plus 200 basis points. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for Japan payments was remanded for fresh verification of secondment and reimbursement evidence. The Thailand payment disallowance was deleted because the India-Thailand DTAA did not provide a fee for technical services article. The German payment disallowance was upheld as the evidence supported technical services and withholding obligations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the most appropriate method for benchmarking the assessee's international transaction in IT-enabled services had to be determined by applying internal TNMM on the basis of AE and non-AE segmental results; (ii) whether interest on trade receivables from AEs was separately bench-markable and, if so, at what rate; (iii) whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for payments to the Japan entity had to be deleted or restored for fresh examination; (iv) whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for payment to the Thailand entity was sustainable; and (v) whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for payment to the German entity was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the most appropriate method for benchmarking the assessee's international transaction in IT-enabled services had to be determined by applying internal TNMM on the basis of AE and non-AE segmental results.

Analysis: The assessee rendered similar services to AEs and non-AEs and the relevant functional profile remained unchanged from the earlier year. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's case, where it had held that only the operating profit and operating cost relating to AE transactions should be considered and that internal TNMM should be examined where comparable services were rendered to both AE and non-AE segments.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Officer for reconsideration in the light of internal TNMM and the AE transaction profit/cost basis.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on trade receivables from AEs was separately bench-markable and, if so, at what rate.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that, in view of the retrospective amendment to section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, receivables constituted an international transaction requiring separate benchmarking. On the rate, it followed the line of authority adopting the currency-linked market rate for foreign currency receivables and accepted LIBOR-based benchmarking, with an additional markup of 200 basis points, for similar foreign currency receivables and advances.

Conclusion: The interest adjustment was upheld in principle, but the rate was directed to be computed by applying LIBOR plus 200 basis points.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for payments to the Japan entity had to be deleted or restored for fresh examination.

Analysis: The assessee produced additional material, including employment contracts, salary reimbursement workings, and invoices, to support its case that the payments represented salary reimbursement pursuant to secondment. As the earlier authorities had not examined the material fully, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and considered that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by a fresh verification.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for examination of the additional material and decision in accordance with law after giving the assessee an opportunity.

Issue (iv): Whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for payment to the Thailand entity was sustainable.

Analysis: The payment was treated as fee for technical services, but the India-Thailand DTAA contained no fee for technical services article. Applying the reasoning that such receipts would fall under business income rather than a residual clause, the Tribunal held that withholding failure on that footing could not sustain the disallowance under the withholding provision invoked.

Conclusion: The disallowance relating to the Thailand entity was deleted.

Issue (v): Whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for payment to the German entity was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee failed to produce reliable evidence to establish that the payment was mere reimbursement for seconded employees. The record supported the view that the payment was for software development services and provision of technical personnel, which fell within the scope of fee for technical services under the India-Germany DTAA and attracted withholding obligations.

Conclusion: The disallowance relating to the German entity was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the Thailand payment issue and obtained a limited remand on the Japan payment issue, while the transfer pricing receivable issue was sent back with directions on the benchmarking method and interest rate, resulting in a mixed outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: Where similar services are rendered to AEs and non-AEs, internal TNMM may be relevant for benchmarking; receivables can constitute an international transaction and foreign-currency interest should be benchmarked by the currency-linked market rate rather than domestic lending rates; and withholding disallowance depends on the treaty characterization of the payment and the evidence supporting the true nature of the transaction.

---