Transfer Pricing: TNMM affirmed for benchmarking royalty payments where remand and prior precedents show arm's length results.

Dispute concerned whether TNMM or CUP is the most appropriate method for benchmarking royalty payments and whether royalty receipts must be benchmarked separately. The ITAT accepted remand findings and prior tribunal precedents that TNMM yields arm's length results for the royalty transactions and that aggregating those transactions under TNMM is permissible; the departmental representative failed to show any higher forum reversal. Outcome: TNMM-based benchmarking and deletion of CUP-based transfer pricing adjustments upheld in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was correct in applying the transactional net margin method (TNMM) instead of the comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method to determine the arm's length price of royalty payments to associated enterprises; (ii) Whether royalty payments could be aggregated under TNMM or had to be benchmarked separately as a distinct class of transaction.

Issue (i): Applicability of TNMM versus CUP for benchmarking royalty payments.

Analysis: The remand proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer recorded that if TNMM is applied as the most appropriate method the royalty transactions are at arm's length. Prior tribunal directions in the assessee's own matters directed benchmarking of royalty using TNMM and those findings were relied upon in the remand proceedings. The departmental representative did not demonstrate that earlier tribunal orders were disturbed by any higher forum and did not refute the TPO's remand finding that TNMM yields arm's length results.

Conclusion: The determination of the arm's length price using TNMM is upheld; this conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Aggregation of royalty payments under TNMM versus separate benchmarking.

Analysis: The appellate authority followed the remand report and earlier tribunal precedents which treated the royalty transactions as amenable to TNMM benchmarking; the departmental grounds alleging requirement of separate benchmarking were not supported by the remand findings or by any higher court reversal of earlier tribunal conclusions.

Conclusion: Aggregation of the relevant transactions under TNMM for benchmarking the royalty payments is upheld; this conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeals challenging the CIT(A)'s adoption of TNMM and the deletion of transfer pricing adjustments in respect of royalty payments are dismissed, resulting in affirmation of TNMM-based benchmarking and deletion of the additions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where remand proceedings and prior tribunal directions establish TNMM as the most appropriate method and the Transfer Pricing Officer's remand report concurs that TNMM yields arm's length results, benchmarking of royalty payments by TNMM is to be sustained and adjustments based on CUP displaced.

---