2025 (3) TMI 944 - AT - Income Tax

TPO's aggregated benchmarking approach for different international service transactions rejected, matter remitted for fresh analysis

McCann Erickson India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle 16 (1), Delhi.

ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on transfer pricing adjustment involving international transactions. The TPO incorrectly adopted an aggregated ... TP adjustment - MAM - proper method either TNMM or CUP - TPO adopting an aggregated approach to benchmark transactions - assessee during the assessment, submitted that it has separate divisions called “Craft division” and maintained separate income and expenses details before TPO - TPO has rejected the same by observing that the assessee did not provide the basis for cost allocation between two segments and the assessee followed the billing on cost to cost basis - TPO proceeded to combine the whole international transactions HELD THAT:- TPO has grossly rejected the submissions of the assessee on the separate craft division’s revenue and cost by observing that the assessee has not submitted the relevant basis of allocation of cost between the divisions. TPO carried the assessment with the bench marking of all the international transactions carried by the assessee combining the payment of fees for various IGS services received by the assessee as well as receipt of IGS services by the assessee. Bench marking of payment and receipt of revenue cannot be combined to bench mark the transactions adopting the same OP/OC or OP/OR. The bench marking must be carried out separately for payment of services and receipt of IGS from the AEs. Therefore, adopting the same OP/OC for all the transactions are not justified. TPO has rejected the craft divisions segment result raising doubt on the basis of allocation. He could have asked the assessee to resubmit or give them proper opportunity to make submissions in this regard. He completed the assessment with the preconceived notions that all the transactions carried by the assessee are similar overlooking the diversity of IGS involved. Therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the TPO to redo the bench marking of the transactions of services rendered by the assessee to its AEs by applying the proper method either TNMM or CUP as per the method provided under the rule 10D of Income Tax rules. TPO has proceeded to complete the assessment combining all the services without bench marking the separate IGS rendered and provided by the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to remit the issue back to the file of AO/TPO to bench mark the IGS provided by the assessee separately de novo after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making an adjustment to the appellant's total income based on the provisions of Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The legality of the reference made under Section 92CA(1) of the Act and the jurisdiction of the TPO in passing the TP order.Whether the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) violated the mandatory provisions of Section 144C(8) of the Act.Whether the final assessment order was issued beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 153 of the Act.The appropriateness of the TPO's approach in disregarding the appellant's documentation for arm's length price justification and adopting an aggregated approach to benchmark transactions.The validity of the TPO's selection of comparables and the application of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method.The characterization of the appellant's functional profile as a limited risk service provider.The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISAdjustment to Total Income and Transfer Pricing Methodology- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The relevant provisions include Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the rules governing transfer pricing, particularly the use of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the TPO rejected the appellant's internal TNMM analysis and applied an aggregated approach to benchmark the transactions. The TPO's decision to treat the appellant as a Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) entity and select comparables accordingly was challenged.- Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant provided documentation and internal TNMM analysis to justify the arm's length nature of its transactions. The TPO selected comparables based on the KPO characterization, which the appellant contested.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the TPO's approach of combining all transactions and applying a single margin was inappropriate. The TPO should have considered the distinct nature of the services and applied separate benchmarking for different transactions.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued for the use of internal comparables and criticized the TPO's selection of external KPO comparables. The Tribunal agreed that the TPO should have allowed the appellant to provide further evidence or clarification regarding cost allocation and segmental analysis.- Conclusions: The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the TPO for a de novo benchmarking of the transactions, emphasizing the need for separate analysis of services rendered and received.Jurisdiction and Procedural Issues- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The provisions of Sections 92CA(1), 144C(8), and 153 of the Income-tax Act were considered.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not address these procedural grounds in detail as the appellant chose not to press them at the hearing.- Key Evidence and Findings: The procedural grounds were dismissed as not pressed.- Application of Law to Facts: Not applicable as these grounds were not pursued.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: Not applicable.- Conclusions: These grounds were dismissed as not pressed by the appellant.Penalty Proceedings under Section 270A- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 270A of the Income-tax Act deals with penalty for under-reporting or misreporting of income.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not specifically address the initiation of penalty proceedings, focusing instead on the substantive transfer pricing issues.- Key Evidence and Findings: The initiation of penalty proceedings was not a central focus of the Tribunal's analysis.- Application of Law to Facts: Not directly addressed in the judgment.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: Not applicable.- Conclusions: The issue of penalty proceedings remains unresolved pending the outcome of the substantive transfer pricing issues.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'In our considered view, the benchmarking of payment and receipt of revenue cannot be combined to benchmark the transactions adopting the same OP/OC or OP/OR. The benchmarking must be carried out separately for payment of services and receipt of IGS from the AEs.'- Core Principles Established: The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of separate benchmarking for distinct types of transactions and the importance of allowing taxpayers to provide comprehensive evidence and justifications for their transfer pricing methodologies.- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal remitted the transfer pricing issues back to the TPO for a fresh assessment, directing that the transactions be benchmarked separately and that the appellant be given an opportunity to provide further evidence and clarification.