Assessee's custom duty adjustment claims dismissed while multiple transfer pricing issues remitted to TPO for fresh consideration

ITAT Bangalore dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding custom duty adjustment in manufacturing segment, noting the assessee admitted no such adjustment was allowed in previous years and stopped claiming it from AY 2016-17. The tribunal rejected base cost adjustment claims for similar reasons. However, ITAT remitted several issues to TPO for fresh consideration including proportionate adjustment based on consistency principle from AY 2013-14, applicability of TNMM vs RPM method for trading segment, and working capital adjustment claims where assessee failed to provide analytical data. The tribunal allowed payments to headquarters for services received from associated enterprises, rejecting revenue's argument about benefit demonstration. Warranty provision disallowance was restored to TPO for examination of subsequent year reversals.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment of custom duty
2. Applicability of TNMM method instead of RPM method
3. Rejection of comparability analysis
4. Adjustment of working capital
5. Disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation
6. Payments made to headquarters for services
7. Addition of provision for warranty

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adjustment of Custom Duty:
The assessee's main grievance in the manufacturing segment was the rejection of adjustment for custom duty paid on imported spare parts. The TPO denied this adjustment, citing the decision in M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, which held that custom duty adjustment should not be allowed. The DRP upheld this decision. The assessee argued that they incur significant customs duty due to higher imports compared to comparable companies, warranting an adjustment. However, the Tribunal found the assessee's arguments too general and unsupported by material evidence. The claim was also not allowed in previous years, and the assessee stopped claiming this adjustment from A.Y. 2016-17 onwards. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal.

2. Applicability of TNMM Method Instead of RPM Method:
The assessee contended that the TPO erred in applying the TNMM method instead of the RPM method for the trading segment. The assessee argued that the RPM method was accepted in A.Y. 2013-14 and should be applied consistently. The Tribunal directed the TPO to reconsider this issue, emphasizing the importance of consistency if the facts remain unchanged. The TPO was also instructed to consider the minimal sales promotion and advertisement costs incurred by the assessee.

3. Rejection of Comparability Analysis:
Grounds 8 and 9 related to the rejection of the comparability analysis conducted by the TPO. The Tribunal set aside these issues to the TPO for fresh examination, in line with the directions given for the trading segment.

4. Adjustment of Working Capital:
The assessee argued that the TPO and DRP erred in not granting working capital adjustments for the manufacturing and trading segments. The Tribunal observed that the TPO and DRP rejected the claim due to the assessee's failure to demonstrate the impact of working capital differences on profits. The Tribunal remitted this issue to the TPO for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide necessary details and material to support their contention.

5. Disallowance of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation:
The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

6. Payments Made to Headquarters for Services:
The assessee paid Rs. 1,30,25,887 for various support services from its AE and benchmarked this payment using the TNMM method. The TPO rejected this method and applied the CUP method, arguing that the assessee failed to establish the receipt of services and the benefit derived. The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the expense should be considered, not the benefit derived, citing the Supreme Court's decision in S.A. Builder. The Tribunal allowed this ground, relying on judgments from the Delhi High Court.

7. Addition of Provision for Warranty:
The assessee claimed that the provision for warranty was reversed in subsequent years, and only the net provision utilized was claimed. The Tribunal remitted this issue to the TPO to verify the reversal of charges and decide accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed some grounds for statistical purposes, remitted others for fresh examination, and dismissed a few based on the assessee's concession or lack of pressing. The order emphasized the need for consistency and adequate evidence in transfer pricing adjustments.

---