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>TPO must verify documentary evidence for aggregate transaction approach before allowing transfer pricing adjustments under TNMM benchmarking</h1> <h3>M/s. Zuari Cement Limited Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore.</h3> M/s. Zuari Cement Limited Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore. - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:Whether the aggregation approach for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions is justified based on the inter-linking of transactions.The appropriateness of the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) rejection of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) in favor of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) and Other Methods.The validity of adjustments made for payments related to technical know-how, sub-license fees, intra-group services, and interest on outstanding receivables.The determination of the appropriate interest rate for Masala Bonds.The refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the assessee.Granting of credit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) and Tax Collected at Source (TCS).Proposed penalty proceedings under Section 270A and interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Aggregation Approach and ALP DeterminationRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The aggregation approach is permissible under Rule 10A(d) of the Income Tax Rules and OECD transfer pricing guidelines when transactions are closely linked or continuous.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the need for documentary evidence to establish close inter-linking of transactions for adopting the aggregation approach. The Tribunal noted that substantial changes in the nature of services and service providers between assessment years 2009-10 and 2018-19 necessitate a fresh examination.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found no sufficient evidence to substantiate the aggregation approach for the transactions in question.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the TPO to verify the inter-linking of transactions with documentary evidence.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the assessee's reliance on past favorable judgments but highlighted the changed circumstances in the current assessment year.Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the TPO to reassess the issue based on evidence of inter-linking.2. Rejection of TNMM and Adoption of CUP/Other MethodsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The selection of the most appropriate method for determining ALP is guided by the Income Tax Rules and past Tribunal decisions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted the need for a close examination of the appropriateness of the methods used by the TPO and DRP.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the TPO and DRP did not adequately justify the rejection of TNMM.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal remanded the issue for re-evaluation by the TPO.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's arguments but emphasized the need for methodical justification.Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the issue for re-examination by the TPO.3. Adjustments for Specific TransactionsTechnical Know-How, Sub-License Fees, Intra-Group Services: These issues were remanded to the TPO for re-evaluation in light of the Tribunal's directions on aggregation and method selection.Interest on Outstanding Receivables: The Tribunal directed the TPO to reassess the imputation of interest, considering the assessee's consistent policy of not charging interest.4. Interest Rate on Masala BondsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) and past assessments.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the agreed interest rate in the APA.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the agreed rate of 8.70% in the APA and past acceptance by the TPO.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal directed the TPO to apply the 8.70% rate.Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim regarding the interest rate.5. Refund of Excess DDTRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referenced the Special Bench decision in JCIT Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the need to refund any excess DDT paid.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim of excess payment.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and refund any excess DDT.Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the refund subject to verification.6. Credit for MAT and TCSRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the statutory provisions for MAT and TCS credits.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the need for accurate credit allocation.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal acknowledged the potential oversight in credit allocation.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and grant the appropriate credits.Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the claims for statistical purposes.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established: The Tribunal reaffirmed the necessity of substantiating the aggregation approach with documentary evidence and the importance of adhering to agreed terms in APAs.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal remanded several issues for further examination by the TPO and allowed claims related to the Masala Bond interest rate and excess DDT refund, subject to verification.
TaxTMI 