Court directs Transfer Pricing Officer to determine arm's length price for international transactions.

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER NEW DELHI

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER NEW DELHI - [2010] 328 ITR 210 Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
2. Alleged sale of the 'Marut' brand to Suzuki.
3. Determination of arm's length price for royalty payments.
4. Apportionment of advertisement and marketing expenses.
5. Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the TPO:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the TPO, arguing that the TPO did not respond to their jurisdictional challenge and continued proceedings without addressing the issue. The court noted that the TPO must provide clear, precise, and unambiguous notice to the assessee, detailing the grounds for proposed adjustments to income. The TPO failed to convey the grounds for the proposed adjustment adequately, leading to a procedural lapse. The court emphasized that the TPO must follow a fair and reasonable procedure, including issuing a fresh notice if the initial grounds for adjustment are abandoned.

Alleged Sale of the 'Marut' Brand to Suzuki:
The TPO initially alleged that replacing the 'M' logo with the 'S' logo symbolized the sale of the 'Marut' brand to Suzuki. However, the court found no evidence of such a transfer. The agreement between Maruti and Suzuki did not grant Suzuki any rights to use the 'Marut' brand or logo. Maruti continued to use its brand and logo, indicating no transfer of ownership. The court concluded that the TPO abandoned the original grounds set out in the show-cause notice and failed to establish a case of brand sale.

Determination of Arm's Length Price for Royalty Payments:
The TPO apportioned 50% of the royalty paid by Maruti to Suzuki for the use of the trademark, without any material justifying such apportionment. The court criticized this approach as arbitrary and lacking basis. The TPO did not attempt to determine what royalty a comparable independent entity would have paid for similar benefits derived from Suzuki. The court highlighted the need for the TPO to ascertain the price a comparable independent entity would have paid for a transaction of this nature to determine the arm's length price accurately.

Apportionment of Advertisement and Marketing Expenses:
The TPO compared Maruti's advertisement expenses with those of Hindustan Motors Limited, Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, and TATA Motors Limited, concluding that Maruti's expenses were disproportionately high. The court found the comparables chosen and the method adopted by the TPO to be faulty and unjustified. The TPO failed to identify and select entities truly comparable to Maruti. The court emphasized the need for a methodological approach to select appropriate comparables and make necessary adjustments considering individual profiles and other relevant factors.

Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The court underscored the importance of fair hearing and proper notice. The TPO must provide clear, precise, and unambiguous notice to the assessee, detailing the grounds for proposed adjustments. The TPO failed to issue a fresh notice after abandoning the original grounds, violating the principles of natural justice. The court reiterated that the TPO must follow a fair and reasonable procedure, including giving the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence and respond to the grounds for adjustment.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2008 and directed the TPO to determine the appropriate arm's length price for the international transactions between Maruti Suzuki India Limited and Suzuki Motor Corporation, Japan, in accordance with Section 92C of the Income Tax Act and the observations made in the judgment. The TPO was instructed to complete this determination within three months.