2025 (12) TMI 1117 - HC - Income Tax

Foreign exchange fluctuations in AE-linked cost-plus transactions treated as operating results; TP adjustment set aside for assessee

Whether foreign exchange fluctuation arising from international transactions should be treated as operating in computing ALP was the dominant issue. ... TP Adjustment - Treating foreign exchange fluctuation as operating cost/revenue - HELD THAT:- The same is covered by the judgment of this Court in Ameriprise India Pvt.[2016 (3) TMI 1272 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein ITAT foreign exchange gain earned by the Assessee is in relation to the trading items emanating from the international transactions. Since the foreign exchange loss directly resulted from trading items, it could not be considered as a non-operating loss. As noted by the Dispute Resolution Panel that the service agreement between the Associated Enterprise (AE) and the Assessee stated that for the specified products and services provided by the Assessee, it 'shall raise invoices on Ameriprise USA on the basis of a cost plus pricing methodology.' ITAT was therefore right in holding that the AO was not justified in considering the foreign exchange loss as a non-operating cost. TP adjustment - price applied or proposed to be applied in an uncontrolled transaction - comparable selection - Issues decided in favour of assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the issues concerning exclusion of specific comparables selected for determining the arm's length price in the assessee's ITeS/BPO and software development segments gave rise to any substantial question of law in view of existing binding precedent. 1.2 Whether foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss in the context of international transactions is to be treated as operating or non-operating revenue/cost for transfer pricing analysis. 1.3 Whether, in light of a substantial delay of 1265 days in re-filing, interference with the order of the Tribunal was warranted. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Exclusion of comparables and existence of substantial question of law Interpretation and reasoning 2.1 The Revenue had challenged the Tribunal's exclusion of multiple comparables (in both ITeS and software/IT services segments) on grounds such as significant brand value, extraordinary events (including amalgamation), functional profile differences (including product-based vs. service-based operations, R&D and engineering services), absence of segmental data, and significant related party transactions. 2.2 The Court recorded the Revenue's own fair concession that, save for the question concerning foreign exchange fluctuation (Question 2.2), all proposed questions of law (relating to the exclusion of specific comparables) stood covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by earlier decisions of the Court in respect of the same assessee and other assessees for the same assessment year and on identical comparability questions. 2.3 The Court noted the detailed chart produced, demonstrating that each challenged exclusion of a comparable had already been adjudicated upon in prior binding decisions of the Court for the same assessment year and fact situation, where entities with significant brand value, extraordinary events, different functional profiles, absence of segmental data, or high related party transactions were held to be not comparable to routine captive service providers. Conclusions 2.4 In view of consistent existing precedent and the Revenue's concession, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's exclusion of the impugned comparables, and therefore declined to interfere with the Tribunal's findings on comparability. Issue 2 - Treatment of foreign exchange fluctuation as operating or non-operating for transfer pricing Legal framework (as discussed) 2.5 The Court referred to its prior decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-I v. Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd., where it had considered whether foreign exchange gain/loss should be regarded as operating revenue/cost in transfer pricing analysis of international transactions. Interpretation and reasoning 2.6 The Court noted that the surviving issue (Question 2.2) related to the treatment of foreign exchange fluctuation as operating cost/revenue. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that even the Transfer Pricing Officer had, in substance, treated such fluctuation as operating in nature. 2.7 The Court extracted and relied upon the reasoning in the Ameriprise decision, where: (a) The foreign exchange gain/loss was found to arise from trading items emanating from international transactions. (b) Such gain/loss, being directly linked to the trading items and forming part of the pricing mechanism (including under a cost-plus arrangement), was held to be operating in nature. (c) The Tribunal in that case was upheld in treating foreign exchange loss as operating cost, and the Court held that no substantial question of law arose. 2.8 Applying the same rationale, the Court held that, for parity of reasons with Ameriprise, the question of treating foreign exchange fluctuation as non-operating did not arise for consideration in the present appeal. Conclusions 2.9 The Court concluded that foreign exchange fluctuation gains/losses, when directly arising from international trading/service transactions and forming part of the pricing construct, are to be treated as operating revenue/cost for transfer pricing purposes, and consequently no substantial question of law was made out on Question 2.2. Issue 3 - Effect of delay in re-filing the appeal Interpretation and reasoning 2.10 The Court recorded that there was a delay of 1265 days in re-filing the appeal. 2.11 Independently of the merits (where no substantial question of law was found to arise), the Court considered this delay as an additional reason not to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Conclusions 2.12 The Court held that, in view of (i) absence of any substantial question of law on the transfer pricing issues and (ii) the inordinate delay of 1265 days in re-filing, the appeal did not warrant interference and was liable to be dismissed.