TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Four companies excluded as comparables for transfer pricing benchmarking despite TNMM's broad tolerance for functional differences</h1> <h3>The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Versus Fluor Daniel India Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Versus Fluor Daniel India Pvt. Ltd. - 2024:DHC:9095 - DB Issues:1. Appeal against transfer pricing adjustment.2. Selection of comparables for benchmark analysis.3. Functional dissimilarity of selected comparables.4. Exclusion of certain comparables based on functional dissimilarity.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding a transfer pricing adjustment for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessee, a subsidiary of a US Company, contested the enhancement of its returned income by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) which were the subject matter of the appeal.2. The Assessee used the transactional net margin method (TNMM) for transfer pricing analysis, selecting eight comparable entities with an average mean profit level indicator (PLI) of 6.99%. The TPO, however, conducted its own analysis and selected seven comparables, directing an enhancement of the Assessee's income based on the benchmark analysis.3. The Assessee objected to the inclusion of four companies as comparables, arguing that their functional profiles were dissimilar. The DRP rejected these objections, stating that TNMM method was tolerant to functional dissimilarity. However, the ITAT examined each comparable individually.4. The ITAT excluded Kitco Ltd., TCE Consulting Engineers Ltd., Project and Development India Ltd., and Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd. as comparables based on their functional dissimilarity with the Assessee. The ITAT's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the functions, assets, and risks of each company, aligning with the arm's length pricing (ALP) provisions under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to exclude certain comparables due to functional dissimilarity, emphasizing the importance of aligning comparables' functional profiles with that of the Assessee. The judgment dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose in the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
