TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....45. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that during the year under consideration the assessee had entered into international transaction with its Associated Enterprises (A.E) made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination the arm's length price of such transaction. In the course of proceedings before him, the Transfer Pricing Officer on verifying the report furnished by the assessee in Form no.3CEB found that during the year under consideration, the assessee had entered into the following international transaction and it also bench marked them by applying different method as under:- Sr. no. Nature of Transaction Amount in A.Y. 2011-12 Method Adopted Amount of A.Y. 2010-11 Method Adopted 1. Import of raw materials for manufacturing 128,844,998 TNMM 128,734,693 TNMM 2. Export of manufactured finished goods 14,092,156 TNMM 4,140, 381 TNMM 3. Payment of royalty 12,975,330 TNMM 13,378,881 TNMM 4. Import of finished goods for resale 1,797,950,387 TNMM 1,643,213,846 TNMM 5. Export of finished goods 10,291,379 TNMM 34,424....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Transfer Pricing Officer noticed that the assessee has not done any separate benchmarking but has determined the arm's length price on cost allocation basis while benchmarking three different business segments under TNMM. Referring to the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer in assessment year 2010-11, he observed that except furnishing the segmental benchmarking of AE transactions and some other documents like screen shots, the assessee could not furnish any credible evidence to show the rendering of service by the AE and the benefit availed by the assessee. Thus, he rejected the benchmarking done by the assessee on cost allocation basis and proceeded to estimate the quantum of arm's length price by devising his own method. Insofar as the payment made towards marketing, administrative and logistic services are concerned, by estimating salary of an employee on man-hour basis, he determined the arm's length price at 60 lakh thereby suggesting an adjustment of Rs. 4,86,06,839. Insofar as payment made towards information technology services is concerned, adopting a similar method of estimation, he determined the arm's length price @ 30% of the total payment mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roducts. He submitted, both the Transfer Pricing Officer and the DRP have accepted the segmental TNMM as the most appropriate method in respect of all other transactions except sale of finished products. Thus, he submitted, once TNMM is accepted as the most appropriate method, it cannot be rejected in case of few transactions relating to sale of finished products. He submitted, the assessee has three segments viz. manufacturing, trading and engineering and all these segments were separately benchmarked applying TNMM which were submitted before the Revenue authorities. He submitted, when TNMM is accepted in case of import of goods, royalty, etc., it cannot be rejected only in case Of sales of finished products to the AE. He submitted, CUP cannot be applied as the most appropriate method in view of geographic, volume and timing difference. He submitted, sales made to the overseas AE and sales made to non-AEs in domestic market cannot be comparable at all. He submitted, the Transfer Pricing Officer has picked-up for adjustment the products only where the price charged to AES is less than the price charged to the non-AEs. Whereas, goods for which the price charged to the AES is higher ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AES and non-AEs. Therefore, the burden is entirely on the assessee to show that CUP method applied by the Transfer Pricing Officer is improper and also to demonstrate how the difference being pointed out by the assessee impact CUP. Further, the learned Departmental Representative submitted, whatever adjustment on account of volume and marketing/allied cost were allowable to the assessee have been allowed by the Transfer Pricing Officer and the DRP. Finally, the learned Departmental Representative submitted, while deciding identical issue in assessment year 2010-11 in assessee's own case, the Tribunal has restored it to the DRP for fresh adjudication. Therefore, he submitted, if deemed appropriate, the issue may be restored to the DRP. 14. In rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, the assessee has submitted the segmental benchmarking under TNMM. Thus, it will be incorrect to say that the assessee has applied TNMM at entity level. With regard to the applicability of CUP, the learned Counsel submitted, since the Transfer Pricing Officer has applied CUP, the burden is on him to find sale transactions which are comparable the sales made to the AEs. He submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances. If, suitable comparable uncontrolled transaction is unavailable, CUP method cannot be applied. 16. It is further noticed, during the year under consideration assessee had sold 34 different products to both overseas AES as welt as domestic unrelated parties. Out of the 34 products sold, Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted the price of 16 products sold to AES to be at arm's length, since, the price charged to AES is more than the price charged to non-AEs. In case of 18 products only She Transfer Pricing Officer has made adjustment as the price charged to AES is less than the price charged to non-AEs. Thus, it appears, the Transfer Pricing Officer has adopted a very selective approach while applying CUP. Even, while applying CUP, the Transfer Pricing Officer has not properly looked into assessee's claim of various adjustments on account of geographical location, volume and timing difference. The Transfer Pricing Officer has only allowed volume adjustment on purely ad-hoc basis, that too, only in respect of a single product while ignoring various other products wherein volume difference between AE and non-AE transaction is substantial. Similarly, assessee's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mation technology services, he has estimated it @ 30% of the amount paid. Thus, the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm's length price of the intra-group services purely on ad-hoc/estimate basis. Though in his order, the Transfer Pricing Officer has not mentioned in any specific terms the exact method applied by him to determine the arm's length price of the intra-group services, however, learned DRP in Para-5.5.3. has observed that the Transfer Pricing Officer has applied CUP method. 20. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, the adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer is not legally sustainable as he has not followed any one of the methods prescribed under section 92C(3) of the Act for determining the arm's length price. The learned Counsel submitted, there cannot be any doubt regarding availing of services by the assessee as it has furnished all the evidences, such as, service agreement, screen shots of the websites maintained by the IT support service providing AE, screen shots of the virtual private network (VPN) maintained by the IT support service AE, the invoices raised by the AE, certificate demonstrating that the assessee had no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been benchmarked on the basis of segmental TNMM. Further, he submitted, the contention of the learned Departmental Representative that the payment for Intra-group services are based on pre-determined cost and not based on benefit received by the assessee is also untenable as cost contribution on a pre-determined basis has been judicially accepted in various decisions. In this context he relied upon the following decisions:- i) CITv/s Merck Ltd., 389 ITR 70 (Bom.); ii) AWB India v/s DCIT, 152 ITD 770 (Bom.); and iii) U. T. Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, 103 taxmann.com 422. 24. He submitted, the terms of the agreement specifically provided that there will be no allocation of cost that benefits any one specific entity. Without prejudice, he submitted, once the transaction has been bench marked using segmental TNMM, the method of allocation of cost becomes irrelevant. He further submitted, the allocation keys adopted by the assessee for allocation of common cost are close to the benefit received. In this context, he drew our attention to the allocation keys applied for cost allocation. He submitted, the allegation of the revenue that allocation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transaction on a purely ad-hoc/estimate basis without following any one of the methods prescribed under section 92C of the Act. It is patent and obvious from the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer that he has not determined the arm's length price by applying either CUP or any other approved method. Had the benchmarking been done under CUP method, the Transfer Pricing Officer should have brought on record at least a few comparable uncontrolled transactions to demonstrate that the payment made by the assessee towards intra- group services is not at arm's length. Whereas, the Transfer Pricing Officer has not brought on record even a single comparable uncontrolled transaction to demonstrate that the price charged by the assessee is not at arm's length. on the contrary, it is tell-tale from the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer that he has proceeded to benchmark the transaction purely on estimate basis by applying man- hour salary rate of a single employee in case of marketing, administrative and logistic services. Similar is Vie situation in case of IT services, wherein, the Transfer Pricing Officer has estimated the arm's length price at 30% of the amount....