Transfer pricing cannot fix a market study payment at nil merely on commercial expediency grounds without proper benchmarking.

In transfer pricing, the arm's length price of a market study payment to an associated enterprise cannot be fixed at nil merely because the authority views the expenditure as generic, unnecessary, or insufficiently beneficial. The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing function is limited to benchmarking under Chapter X and Rules 10A to 10E, not assessing commercial expediency. It also noted evidence of subsequent investment and sales growth in Turkey supporting the business purpose of the study. A nil valuation without independent benchmarking was therefore treated as an impermissible disallowance on business-expenditure grounds, and the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transfer pricing adjustment made by determining the arm's length price of the assessee's market study payment to its associated enterprise at nil was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee had paid its associated enterprise in Turkey for a market study undertaken in connection with business expansion. The adjustment at nil was made on the premise that the information was generic, available in the public domain, and that the assessee had not shown sufficient benefit from the study. The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing authority's function is confined to determining the arm's length price under Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rules 10A to 10E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and not to judge the commercial expediency of the expenditure. It further noted that the assessee had shown subsequent increase in investment and sales in Turkey, supporting the business purpose of the study, and that a nil valuation without independent benchmarking amounted to an impermissible wholesale disallowance on considerations relevant to business expenditure, not transfer pricing.

Conclusion: The nil arm's length price determination was unsustainable and the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned transfer pricing addition relating to market study expenses was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing, the authority cannot determine the arm's length price at nil merely because it considers the expenditure unnecessary or unremunerative; the determination must rest on proper benchmarking and cannot be based on commercial expediency.

---