TP adjustment denied for non-binding advisory services; AO to verify interest under Section 234A and expedite rectification

The ITAT Mumbai allowed the TP adjustment challenge related to non-binding investment advisory services, holding there was no basis for adding a 22% markup since the assessee was already reimbursed on a cost-plus 22% basis and the comparable margin was only 7.93%. Regarding the ITeS transaction, the tribunal directed the assessee to provide extrapolated data of a comparable company for the relevant FY for TPO's examination. The tribunal declined to decide on the GST refund addition as it was not part of the scrutiny assessment and directed the AO to expedite the pending rectification application. On interest under section 234A, the AO was directed to verify the timeliness of return filing and levy interest if applicable. Grounds 1, 3, 4, and 5 were allowed for statistical purposes or directed for further verification.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the upward transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on international transactions pertaining to non-binding investment advisory and support services is justified by including carried interest received by employees in the cost base for computing arm's length price (ALP)?Whether the transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA on international transactions pertaining to provision of Information Technology enabled Services (ITeS) to associated enterprises is valid, specifically regarding the rejection of certain comparable companies and the exclusion of R Systems International Ltd. due to different financial year ending'Whether addition of refund received towards Goods and Services Tax (GST) without reasons or opportunity to the assessee is valid'Whether principles of natural justice were violated by not granting opportunity of hearing prior to making addition of GST refund to income'Whether interest under section 234A of the Act is rightly levied when the return of income was filed within the prescribed time'Whether the computation of consequential interest under section 234A and total interest amount is correct'Whether initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act is justified?

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 19,80,000 by including carried interest received by employees in the cost base for provision of non-binding investment advisory services is not sustained, as the assessee was compensated on a cost-plus basis and the margin remains at 22% even after adjustment; therefore, the adjustment lacks basis.The issue of exclusion of R Systems International Ltd. as comparable due to different financial year ending is remanded to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for de novo examination upon submission of extrapolated financial data, as a company cannot be rejected solely on different financial year ending if results can be reasonably extrapolated; other grounds relating to comparables are not pressed.The addition of Rs. 33,35,64,406 relating to GST refund made without reasons or opportunity to the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, with direction to the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the pending rectification application in accordance with law.The failure to provide opportunity of hearing before making the addition of GST refund violates principles of natural justice; ground allowed for statistical purposes.The levy of interest under section 234A is not adjudicated on merits but the AO is directed to verify timely filing of return and levy interest only if delay is established; ground allowed for statistical purposes.The computation of consequential interest and total interest is consequential to other findings and requires no separate adjudication.The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A is premature and is dismissed.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the transfer pricing provisions under sections 92CA and related sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, emphasizing that where the tested party is compensated on a cost-plus basis, inclusion of employee incentives not contractually borne by the tested party in the cost base must reflect in both cost and revenue to maintain the arm's length margin; unilateral addition without adjusting revenue is not justified.The Court relied on precedent that a comparable company cannot be excluded solely on the basis of different financial year ending provided that financial results can be reasonably extrapolated, referencing the decision that functional comparability is paramount and different accounting periods are not a bar if data can be adjusted accordingly.The Court recognized procedural fairness principles, holding that additions without reasons or opportunity to be heard violate natural justice, and that pending rectification applications must be disposed of by the AO in accordance with law.The Court directed verification of facts regarding timely filing of return before levying interest under section 234A, underscoring the statutory requirement that interest is levied only for delay in furnishing return.The dismissal of penalty proceedings as premature reflects the Court's approach to avoid adjudicating penalty issues before final determination of substantive tax liability.

---