Transfer pricing adjustments for export margins remanded for verification, corporate guarantee fee restricted to 0.5%

ITAT PUNE remanded transfer pricing adjustments for export of spare parts and components to AEs back to AO for verification. For A.Y. 2006-07, profit margin on AE exports (67%) exceeded non-AE exports (56.58%), but for the appeal year, AE export margin (28.96%) was lower than non-AE exports (34.42%). AO directed to verify internal TNMM for manufactured exports and external TNMM for global sourcing transactions. Regarding corporate guarantee fee, ITAT allowed CGF claim at 0.19% for A.Y. 2015-16 as it was below accepted 0.5% threshold, but restricted CGF to 0.5% for A.Y. 2016-17, disallowing excess 0.12% claimed by assessee.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include: (1) Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was justified in making upward transfer pricing adjustments in respect of the export of spare parts and components to associated enterprises (AEs), particularly regarding the segmentation of international transactions into sub-categories; (2) Whether the internal Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) or external TNMM is appropriate for benchmarking these transactions; (3) Whether the Corporate Guarantee Fee (CGF) paid by the assessee to its AEs is allowable as a business expenditure and whether the rate claimed is reasonable and substantiated; and (4) The applicability of precedents and the correctness of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] orders in deleting or allowing the respective adjustments and disallowances.

Issue 1: Transfer Pricing Adjustments Relating to Export of Spare Parts and Components

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The transfer pricing provisions under sections 92CA and 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the methods prescribed therein, particularly the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), govern the determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) in international transactions. The Tribunal's earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for AYs 2006-07 to 2013-14 were heavily relied upon, which analyzed similar issues of segmentation and benchmarking of spare parts exports to AEs.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the nature of the international transactions, which were divided into three categories: (A) sale of spares for servicing vehicles, (B) sourcing components for 2/3 wheelers manufacture by AEs, and (C) sourcing components for 4-wheelers manufacture by AEs. The assessee argued that these categories represent economically and functionally distinct activities, with category "A" involving higher value-added after-sales service spares, and categories "B" and "C" involving logistics and sourcing support services. The Tribunal emphasized the need for comparability in transfer pricing analysis, noting that benchmarking should be done with similarly placed transactions.

The TPO had combined all categories and applied an internal TNMM using the profit margin from exports of spares to non-AEs (34.42%) to the entire exports to AEs, resulting in an upward adjustment. The Tribunal found this approach flawed because it ignored the functional differences between the categories. The profit margins for category "A" transactions to AEs were higher (67%) than to non-AEs (56.58%), indicating arm's length pricing for these transactions. Conversely, categories "B" and "C" involved limited functions akin to logistic support and did not have comparable transactions with non-AEs, making internal TNMM benchmarking inappropriate.

Key Evidence and Findings: Detailed tabulations of sales, costs, and operating margins for the various categories were analyzed. The profit margin differences substantiated the assessee's claim of functional and economic distinctions. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's prior successful challenges on similar grounds in earlier years.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer pricing analysis must compare economically comparable transactions. It held that sub-segmentation was appropriate and necessary to avoid inappropriate benchmarking. It directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the internal TNMM application for category "A" transactions and to examine the external TNMM report for categories "B" and "C" transactions, remanding the issue for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to furnish details.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that all spare parts and components constitute a singular activity and rejected sub-segmentation. The Tribunal rejected this view, emphasizing the economic and functional differences and the need for appropriate segmentation in benchmarking.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's ground for statistical purposes, remitting the transfer pricing adjustments issue back to the AO for re-examination consistent with the Tribunal's reasoning and prior precedents.

Issue 2: Allowability and Benchmarking of Corporate Guarantee Fees (CGF)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The transfer pricing provisions under section 92CA and the requirement to determine ALP for corporate guarantee fees paid to AEs were considered. The Tribunal also referred to judgments of various High Courts upholding CGF at rates around 0.5% as reasonable.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee had availed loans from several international banks with corporate guarantees from its parent AE, paying CGF at 0.19% for AY 2015-16 and 0.62% for AY 2016-17. The TPO disallowed the CGF payments, citing lack of loan agreements, failure to prove benefits received, and absence of credit rating substantiation. The CIT(A) allowed the CGF claim for AY 2015-16, observing that the parent company's guarantee was a pre-condition for obtaining loans at cheaper rates and that the TPO had not followed statutory procedures nor applied prescribed methods under section 92C.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee furnished loan agreements showing the necessity of corporate guarantees, detailed transfer pricing reports benchmarking the CGF, and referenced judicial precedents supporting the allowance of CGF at reasonable rates. The CIT(A) found the effective CGF rate of 0.19% reasonable and less than the 0.5% benchmark accepted by courts.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings for AY 2015-16, allowing the CGF claim. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal noted the higher CGF rate of 0.62% lacked proper substantiation and exceeded the generally accepted 0.5%. The Tribunal allowed the CGF claim only up to 0.5%, disallowing the excess amount.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument focused on lack of evidence and statutory non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s detailed reasoning and judicial precedents persuasive for AY 2015-16 but required moderation for AY 2016-17 in absence of adequate evidence.

Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground for AY 2015-16 and partly allowed it for AY 2016-17, permitting CGF claim up to 0.5% and disallowing the excess.

Significant Holdings:

"It is a well-settled proposition that while carrying out the transfer pricing study of an international transaction, it is imperative that a comparison is made with the similarly placed transactions, as far as possible."

"The transactions of Category 'B' and 'C' are not undertaken with third parties (i.e. Non-AEs). Therefore, benchmarking of such transactions cannot be done appropriately by invoking the internal TNMM mechanism."

"The supply of spare-parts and components as purely after-sales distribution results in higher margins. In contrast, the sourcing of products for overseas AE entailing category 'B' and 'C' transactions, the assessee has very limited role to play, which is akin to logistics support service provider."

"The learned TPO has not applied any of the methods stipulated in section 92C of the Income Tax Act read along with Rule 10B and 10AB. It is also noticed that the learned TPO has not given any show cause notice under the proviso to section 92C(3) as required statutorily before determining the ALP of the corporate guarantee fee as Nil."

"Without the guarantee the appellant which does not have sufficient capital assets could not have obtained such huge loans at a cheaper rate from foreign lenders."

Final determinations: The Tribunal remanded the transfer pricing adjustment issue relating to export of spares and components to the AO for re-examination with directions to consider the sub-segmentation and appropriate benchmarking methods. The CGF claim was allowed for AY 2015-16 in full and allowed up to 0.5% for AY 2016-17, disallowing the excess. The appeals of the Revenue were partly allowed accordingly.

---