TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted Enterprises ('AEs') Gulbrandsen Chemicals Inc., USA and Gulbrandsen EC Limited, UK. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in upholding the Ld. TPO/AO's approach of rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNNM") as the most appropriate method. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in upholding the Ld. TPO/AO's approach of adopting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") method as the most appropriate method. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in not allowing following comparability adjustments claimed by the appellant for material differences in contractual terms, underlying commercial circumstances, functions, risks and other economic factors between appellant's transactions with AEs vis-a-vis appellant's transactions with non-AEs, while applying the CUP method. i. Adjustment on account of business volume differences. ii. Adjustment for advance payment received from AE. iii. Adjustment for marketing and selling expenses not required to be incurred for AE sales vis-a-vis Non AE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A and Gulbrandsen EU Limited UK. The assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of chemicals for its divergent industrial customers, its product range includes Aluminium Chloride Anhydrous (ANH), Meno N Butyl Trichloride (MBTC), Stannic Chloride (TTC), Dibutyl Tin Oxide (DBTO)/ Dibutyl Tin Tin Dilaurate (DBTAA) and Tri Chloro Benzene and these products are supplied to the industries including petrochemical industry, pharmaceutical and chemical intermediate users. The assessee has also sold these products to its AEs, namely Gulbrandsen Chemicals Inc, USA, and Gulbrandsen EU Limited, UK. During the course of assessment proceedings, the matter regrading ascertainment of arm's length price was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Transfer Pricing Officer noticed that the assessee had, deviating from the stand taken in the earlier years in which internal CUP method was adopted for benchmarking the sale to the AEs, computed the arm's length price of these transactions on the basis of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). In effect thus, the assessee moved, in the current year, from internal CUP to TNMM. This, however, did not find favour with the TPO. The TPO was of the view, fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in which the respective AE and non AE transactions take place". It was thus submitted that the economic circumstances in which sales have taken place with the AEs are not at all comparable with the economic circumstances in which non AE sales have taken place. It was also explained that the AEs, to which the assessee has sold the products, are resellers whereas non AEs are end consumers, and that while these AEs are located in US and UK, the non AE customers are in Asia and Middle East. Emphasis thus was placed on the fact that the geographical location of markets was different and the comparison was thus inappropriate. It was also highlighted that the volume of sales to the AEs was substantially higher than sales to non AEs. The attention was also invited to the fact that while AEs make, on an average, 17 months advance payment for the purchases while non AEs are extended 60-90 days credit period. It was thus contended that there was no credit risk to AE sales. The assessee further pointed out that the AEs also reimburse the assessee the basic research and development costs with 110% mark up under long term business arrangement, over and above the sale price, and that the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant's case" and went on to add that "further, it is an accepted position that CUP is a superior method to other methods, if available" as "was also held in the case of Serdia Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd by Mumbai ITAT (2011) 44 SOT 391 (Mum)". Even as the learned CIT(A) held that adjustments were possible, he rejected the same, on the merits, including in respect of volume discount, credit terms, marketing and selling function and consequent costs, credit risk, reimbursement of R&D costs, interest free ECB loans, and all such factors. The TPO also observed that there is a huge difference between sale price of MDTC to its USA based AE and UK based AE inasmuch as the same product was sold to US based AE for Rs. 412.95 and to UK based AE for Rs. 370.13. This, according to the CIT(A), indicated that the sale to USA based AE was much above the arm's length price. Learned CIT(A) observed that the "appellant has not explained the vast difference between the prices charged for the same chemical from two AEs in the same period" and, therefore, "the adjustment claimed by the appellant and the calculation done by the appellant to arrive at ALP after adjustments is not acceptable" and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is reasonably possible to apply a direct method of ascertaining the arm's length price of a transaction, such a direct method will have an edge over application of indirect method of ascertaining the arm's length price. This principle has been reiterated in a large number of decisions of the coordinate benches, such as in the case of ACIT Vs MSS India Ltd [(2009) 32 SOT 132 (Pune) and Serdia Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd VS ACIT [(2011) 44 SOT 391 (Mum)]. Going by this principle, all other things being equal, a direct method like Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method will have an edge over an indirect method like Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). That does not, and cannot, however mean that whatever be the fact situation, CUP is always a preferred method because of one of the essential prerequisite for application of any method of ascertaining the ALP is the inputs necessary for that purpose. Whatever may be inherent edge of the direct methods of determining arm's length price of an international transaction over indirect methods of determining the arm's length price of international transactions, selection of the most appropriate method for determining arm's length pric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication of the method" is one of the crucial factors determining suitability of a method of determination of arm's length price in a particular fact situation. Similarly, it is also important to determine whether accurate adjustments can be made for the differences between the international transactions and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, and unless such adjustments can be made the related method cannot be said to be most appropriate method. We have already seen as to how, in the CIT(A)'s analysis, suitable adjustments could not be made even though in his opening observations in the operative portion of the order, he stated that suitable adjustments can indeed be made. The inability to make suitable adjustments, therefore, does take the method outside the ambit of most appropriate method. Quite clearly, therefore, unless suitable reliable data inputs necessary for application of a particular method, as CUP in this case, are available, CUP method cannot be said to be most appropriate methods on the facts of this case. Let us, therefore, first examine whether sufficient inputs were indeed available. 11. At the outset, it is important to note that what has been relied upo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is given by assessee's own computation, and, on the same page, on one invoice, the assessee has shown a margin as high as 27 per cent. The cost plus method, therefore, has not been correctly applied. In any case, one of the most important input, i.e. diamond, has been imported at a price for which no ALP documentation is available and the price of imports have been taken into account in computation of costs as well. The costs of inputs have not been verified either. No efforts are made to show that the terms of sale to the AEs and all other relevant factors are materially similar vis-a-vis the transactions with independent enterprises. The CPM is applied by comparing gross profit on sales, whereas the method requires comparison of mark up on costs on transactions with AEs vis-a-vis mark up on costs on transactions with non AEs [Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us now] 12. It is also important to note that the TPO has justified application of internal CUP on the basis of deviations in prices at which products are sold to different AEs and, by implication, using one intra AE price to bench the other intra AE price. That is wholly incorrect. It is well settled in law th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The CIT(A) has also noted the deviations in the advance payment terms of 120 days under the agreement and the actual advance payment of 17 months on average. He has also noted that in three invoices on non-AEs the credit period was 60 days but then he declines to treat these evidence as support for the claim that in all cases similar credits were given. However, what is clear that there is clearly significant variation in payment terms. As a matter of fact, at page 29, learned CIT(A) himself notes that "as per the agreement, advance payment was to facilitate appellant's purchases, working capital etc which, in turn, ensured uninterrupted supply to the AE". He does accept that he was given analysis sheet showing 17 months advance payment but rejects it as agreement refers to only 120 days advance payment. That does not belittle the fact that whatever may have been payment terms under the intra AE agreement, the payment was actually received substantially in advance. The question we must ask ourselves is that whether such substantial advance payments, which ensure availability of working capital to the assessee, can be compared with normal business transactions allowing, on the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the price in the open market" but then while CIT(A) uphold the application of CUP method on the ground that adjustments can indeed be made, he rejects the adjustments on merits. That is clearly incongruous. When he admits that no adjustments can be made on merits, the very foundation of his decision to uphold application of CUP method ceases to hold good. In any case, having perused the material on record, we are of the considered view that accurate adjustments cannot be made to nullify the impact of absolutely fundamental variations in the terms of the intra AE and non AE transactions, and since accurate adjustments cannot be made, for this reason alone, CUP method ceases to be workable on the facts of this case. The contradiction in the approach is also evident from the fact that the CIT(A) has upheld application of CUP method on the sole basis that accurate adjustments can be made to take care of variations in the intra AE and independent transactions but then one of the points made before us, in the written submissions, is that "if total adjustment of 36% claimed in those years was allowed, prices would come d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are taken into account, and suitable adjustments are made in the available CUP inputs, the application of CUP has no usefulness. The variations in nature of relationship affecting the FAR analysis is not even disputed by the revenue and rule 10 B(1)(a)(ii) itself provides that "such price is adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the price in the open market". As regards the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Serdia Pharmaceuticals (supra), that was a case in which no dispute was raised with respect to the comparables cases except on account of quality for which suitable adjustment was allowed. This precedent, therefore, does not offer any help to the case of the revenue. All that has been relied upon is internal CUP and for the detailed reasons set out by the CIT(A), which meets our approval, these CUP inputs were not reliable enough. In any case, differences due to variations in FAR due to nature of trade relationship with AEs have not been accounted for and suitable adjusted. The external CUP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o by the assessee. We, therefore, reject the stand of the authorities below on this issue. 20. We have noted that the assessee has applied TNMM by comparing the profits on transactions with AEs and the non AEs and no specific defects have been pointed out in the allocation of costs in the segmental accounts which are duly reconciled with entity level consolidated accounts. We have also noted that dealing with the Internal TNMM adopted by the assessee the TPO had expressed the view that the basis of allocating the overheads was not clear, in response to which it was explained by the assessee that revenue and expenses have been allocated on actual basis wherever these are directly allocable, and wherever these are not directly allocable, the allocation has been done on the basis of appropriate allocation key such as ration of sales quantity, sales revenue, total revenue. It was also explained that the segmental details have been reconciled with entity level audited accounts. The assessee had further submitted that "in case if in your view there are any inappropriate cost allocations, we would appreciate if you can kindly let us know which cost allocations are not appropriate and w....