2025 (2) TMI 498 - HC - Income Tax

HC upholds deletion of TP additions on expatriate salary reimbursements and royalty payments, rejecting double deduction claim

Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. - 2025:DHC:708 - DB, [2025] 476 ITR 404 ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue considered in the appeals was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) unlawfully deleted the additions made by the Revenue for purported reimbursement of expatriate salaries and payment for royalty, without making an independent finding on the 'double deduction' nature of the claim. The issue also encompassed the question of whether the ITAT failed to assess the arm's length price (ALP) concerning these expenses and the reimbursement of software expenses with similar details, use, functions, and purposes.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Reimbursement of Expatriate Salaries:The legal framework involved the determination of the ALP under the transfer pricing regulations, particularly Sections 92B and 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal was tasked with evaluating whether the reimbursement of expatriate salaries to the associated enterprises (AEs) was at arm's length.The Court noted that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had determined the ALP for the expatriate salary reimbursement as Nil, arguing that the expatriates were performing functions for the benefit of the AE, not the Assessee. The TPO also questioned the commercial wisdom of the Assessee in employing expatriates and doubted the benefit derived from them.The CIT(A) and ITAT, however, found that the Assessee had adequately demonstrated that the expatriates were working in India and that their salaries were reimbursed at cost without markup, thus meeting the arm's length standard. The Assessee had provided documentation, including visa and tax deduction at source (TDS) details, to substantiate the presence and roles of the expatriates in India.The Court held that the TPO's role is limited to determining the ALP and not questioning the commercial necessity of the transaction, citing precedents like Commissioner of Income Tax v. Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Court concluded that the ITAT was correct in upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions made by the TPO.2. Payment of Royalty:The issue involved the ALP determination for royalty payments made by the Assessee to its AE, Bencom S.R.L., for technical know-how and designs. The TPO had rejected the Assessee's Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for benchmarking royalty, arguing that the Assessee incurred losses, which indicated that the technical know-how was of no value.The CIT(A) and ITAT disagreed with the TPO's reasoning, emphasizing that the commercial decision to pay royalty cannot be judged solely on the profitability of the Assessee. The Assessee had provided comparables showing royalty rates in the industry, which were consistent with the rates paid by the Assessee. The Court reiterated that the TPO should focus on whether the payment was at arm's length, not on the commercial expediency of the transaction.The Court upheld the ITAT's finding that the royalty payment was at arm's length, noting that the Assessee had furnished adequate documentation to demonstrate the receipt of technical know-how and its utility in maintaining the quality and design standards of its products.3. Reimbursement of Software Expenses:Although the issue of software expenses was mentioned, it was not a focal point in the appeals, as the Revenue did not specifically challenge the deletion of these expenses. The ITAT did not address this issue separately, as it was subsumed under the expatriate salary reimbursement, which was benchmarked using the transactional net margin method (TNMM).SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court emphasized that the TPO's role is confined to determining the ALP and not questioning the business decisions of the Assessee. The Court upheld the ITAT's decision to delete the additions made by the TPO, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeals. The Court also noted that the Revenue failed to substantiate any claim of double deduction.The Court concluded that the Assessee had adequately demonstrated that the transactions were at arm's length, and the ITAT's decision was based on sound reasoning and evidence.