Transfer pricing adjustment on differential commission rates rejected; ad hoc benchmarking deleted and interest recalculated accordingly.

Transfer pricing adjustment challenged the use of commission received as the arm's length benchmark for commission paid on import and export transactions; the benchmarking was held impermissible because the commission received did not reflect uncontrolled transactions or dealings between non-associated parties, so the ad hoc addition based on a thumb rule was deleted. The tribunal observed the TPO/AO applied the adjustment without providing opportunity to the taxpayer and directed deletion of the addition. The AO was directed to revisit interest consequences: verify and compute interest under consequential provisions and confirm return filing due dates before taking action on interest relating to delayed filing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjustment of Rs. 2,57,67,740 made by the TPO/AO in respect of differential commission rates (commission paid vis-a-vis commission received) is sustainable; (ii) Whether interest and consequential tax consequences arising from the impugned assessment require modification in view of deletions and rectifications.

Issue (i): Validity of transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 2,57,67,740 made by benchmarking commission paid against commission received.

Analysis: The adjustment was not part of the draft assessment but was introduced pursuant to directions and by the TPO in the order giving effect; the assessee was not afforded an opportunity before the adjustment. The TPO benchmarked a controlled transaction (commission received) as the ALP for another controlled transaction (commission paid). The statutory definition of arm's length price under section 92/92F(ii) contemplates comparison with transactions between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions. Reliance on the jurisdictional High Court authority holding that comparing one controlled transaction with another controlled transaction is impermissible was considered. The TPO/AO applied an ad hoc pro-rata thumb rule without furnishing material substantiating the differential or providing opportunity to the assessee.

Conclusion: The adjustment of Rs. 2,57,67,740 is deleted and the related grounds allowing deletion are upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Consequential interest and related consequential grounds (sections 234A, 234B, 234C and penalty proceedings under section 270A).

Analysis: Interest under sections 234B and 234C are consequential on the tax adjustments and require recalculation by the AO after giving effect to the deletions. The correctness of interest under section 234A depends on the verified due date of filing in light of extant circulars; penalty proceedings were held premature.

Conclusion: Grounds relating to interest under sections 234B and 234C are remitted to the AO for verification and computation after giving effect. The AO is directed to verify and take action regarding interest under section 234A. The ground challenging initiation of penalty proceedings is dismissed as premature.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed by deleting the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 2,57,67,740 and remitting interest consequential computations to the assessing officer; other reliefs and rectifications already effected are treated as infructuous or addressed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer pricing adjustment cannot validly benchmark a controlled transaction against another controlled transaction; arm's length price must be determined with reference to transactions between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions, and adjustments introduced without opportunity to be heard or supported by material are unsustainable.

---