TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to the international transactions rendered by the Appellant during AY 13-14. 2. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of 92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO/learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP have erred in disregarding the economic analysis performed by the Appellant in the TP documentation in justification of the arm's length nature of the international transactions entered by it with its Associated Enterprises. 4. The learned AO/ learned TPO /Hon'ble DRP erred in considering losses on foreign exchange fluctuation as operating in nature. 5. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing adjustment on account of custom duty and surcharges incurred by the Appellant. 6. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing purchase price adjustment. 7. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in ignoring the fact that different companies adopt different rates for various asset categories while computing depreciation and the data. pertaining to the same is not available in the public domain. Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by way of above ground. 4. Ground Nos.1, 2 & 3 are general in nature, which do not require any adjudication. 5. Ground No.4 & 6 are with regard to not considering the losses on account of foreign exchange fluctuation as operating in nature and ground No.6 is with regard to not allowing purchase price adjustment. The assessee sought adjustment for the purchase price difference between the contracted price and the actual price of delivery due to forex fluctuation. The assessee also sought adjustment for fluctuation for reinstatement of foreign currency as per accounting standards. According to the assessee, TPO has not given any reason for reduction of purchase price adjustment except to state that it makes no sense. According to the Ld. A.R. the purchase of assessee have import component of 75% and there is a peak difference between the purchase price of the assessee and all the comparables. A proper comparability analysis should factor the same. It is also brought to our notice that loss due to the fluctuation which are in the revenue field are to be treated as operating in nature and those which pertain to earlier years/reinstatement are to be treated as non-operating in nature.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is not the case for the comparable companies, thus, putting the assessee in a comparative disadvantage vis-a-vis the comparables. The TPO rejected the adjustment sought for the reason that the decision to import is a conscious decision taken by the assessee and in the absence of any external factors, beyond the control of the Assessee necessitating imports, no adjustment can be made. The TPO also observed that the import duty is a part of the cost of material which is always included at the time of pricing of the product and also that the assessee ought to have considered the customs duty component payable while negotiating the price at which the raw materials are imported. 26. The DRP has upheld the non-grant of customs duty adjustment on the basis that the arithmetic mean of margins under the TNMM method takes care of such difference. 27. The assessee submits that the import of raw materials is not a commercial decision but on the other hand is necessitated for reasons beyond the assessee i.e., by lack of capacity to localize the procurement which the assessee is still in the process of doing. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support of the Appellant's co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ween the tested party and the comparables, then the profit margin of all the companies would become uniform. e. The assessee company ought to have considered the customs duty component payable while negotiating the price at which the raw materials were imported from the AEs. 30. This issue came up for consideration before the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Gates Unitta India Company (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, 84 taxman.com 69 wherein it was held as follows:- "5. Before us, ld. A.R submitted that 90% of the raw materials of the assessee are imported as such customs duty adjustments to be made and it includes Rs. 4.31 crores pertained to the customs duty in the manufacturing segment. In principle the customs duty adjustments is allowed in view of the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Motonic India Automotive (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 235 (Chennai - Trib.) wherein held that: '6.1 At this stage, it is pertinent to mention the finding of the Pune Bench in the case of Demag Cranes & Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) dated 4.1.2012 in ITA No.120/PN/2011, which is as follows : "37. We have heard the parties and perused the available materia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The other way of looking at the present situation is to accept that business model of the assessee company and the comparable companies are the same and it is on account of initial stages of business that the unusually high costs are incurred. The adjustments are thus required either way. It is, therefore, permissible in principle to make adjustments in the costs and profits in fit cases. We also do not agree with the authorities below that the onus is on the assessee to get all such details of the comparable concerns so as to make this comparison possible. The assessee cannot be expected to get the details and particulars which are not in publicdomain. In such a situation, i.e. when information available in public domain is not sufficient to make these comparisons possible, it is inevitable that some approximations are to be made and reasonable assumptions are to be made. The argument before us was that it was first year of assessee's operations and complete facilities ensuring a reasonable indigenous raw material content was not in place. The assessee's claim is that it was in these circumstances that the assessee had to sell the cars with such high import contents, and e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in ignoring the fact that different companies adopt different rates for various asset categories while computing depreciation and the data. pertaining to the same is not available in the public domain. Accordingly, the learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in not excluding depreciation while computing the operating margin of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 7.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in assessee's own case cited (supra), wherein it was held as under:- 10. "On the issue of depreciation adjustment, the assessee has submitted that if the rates of depreciation are different between the tested party and the comparable companies, an adjustment has to be made for the same in the comparability analysis. In this regard, the assessee has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Outsource Partners Ltd IT(TP)A No.2171IBang/2019, wherein it is observed as follows:- "4.4 From the above order of the Tribunal, it is clear if there is difference in depreciation in the case of assessee and the comparable cases, reasonable depreciation adjustment is to be m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....controlled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market" 23. Rule 10B(2) of the Rules provides comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction needs to be judged with reference to certain specified factors. One such factor is conditions prevailing in the markets in which the respective parties to the transactions operate, including the geographical location and size of the markets, the laws and Government orders in force, costs of labour and capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail. 22. Rule 10B(3) of the Rules provide that: "An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if - (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid in, or the profit arising from, such transactions in the open market; or (ii) reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the materi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 482 of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the US regulations') also support the above. Regulation 1.482-1(d)(2) of the US regulation states as follows: "In order to be considered comparable to a controlled transaction, an uncontrolled transaction need not be identical to the controlled transaction, but must be sufficiently similar that it provides a reliable measure of an arm's length result. If there are material differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions, adjustments must be made if the effect of such differences on prices or profits can be ascertained with sufficient accuracy to improve the reliability of the results. For purposes of this section, a material difference is one that would materially affect the measure of an arm's length result under the method being applied." 26. The Indian transfer pricing regulations, OECD Guidelines and the US transfer pricing regulations call for an adjustment to be made in case of material differences in the transactions or the enterprises being compared so as to arrive at a more reliable arm's length price/ margin. While the Indian transfer pricing regulations refer to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umbai Tribunal i.e. Petro Araldite P. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has upheld the principle that adjustment for capacity under-utilization can be granted Following the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Petro Araldite P. Ltd. (supra), we hold that any adjustment for capacity under-utilization can be granted" (iv) In the recent case of GE Intelligent Platform Private Limited (IT(TP)A No. 148/Bang/2015 and 164/Bang/2015) for AY 2010-11 was held as follows: "8 now the law is quite settled to the extent that once there is unutilized capacity or men power, such underutilization impacts margin and therefore, the adjustment should be made while computing the ALP If the underutilization is more than average underutilization of the industry then necessary adjustment is required to be made to the margin of computing ALP" 27. Moreover, the above argument of the assessee for grant of capacity utilization adjustment is also supported by the following decision of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.1231/Bang/2010). Relevant extract of the decision is under:- "15.2 We agree with this contention of the counsel for the assessee. All ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt on the comparable companies, the operating cost of the tested party is adjusted for capacity utilization adjustment. 31. The assessee has under-utilized capacity during the subject AY and is accordingly factually and legally eligible to an adjustment for the same. Therefore, such a benefit cannot be denied to the assessee only for the reason that the data about comparable companies is not available. Requiring the assessee to produce such a data which is not available in public domain would tantamount to requiring the Appellant to perform an impossible task. The only way to get the data in the current case, would be where the TPO collates the same from the comparable companies by exercising his powers under section 133(6) of the Act. The relevant extracts of the section are as under:- "(6) require any person, including a banking company or any officer thereof, to furnish information in relation to such points or matters, or to furnish statements of accounts and affairs verified in the manner specified by the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), giving information in relation to such points or matters as,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that the assessee has filed the computation of working capital adjustment before the DRP, but the DRP has not considered the same. We also find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Huawei Technologies India (P.) Limited 101 taxmann.com 313 has discussed all the reasons on the issue and held that working capital shall be allowed; holding as under at paras 10 to 18 thereof:- "10. The next grievance projected by the Assessee in its appeal is with regard to the action of the CIT (A) in not allowing any adjustment towards working capital differences. On this issue we have heard the rival submissions. The relevant provisions of the Act in so far as comparability of international transaction with a transaction of similar nature entered into between unrelated parties, provides as follows: Determination of arm's length price under section 92C. 10B. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal location and size of the markets, the laws and Government orders in force, costs of labour and capitalin the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail. (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] if - (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid in, or the profit arising from, such transactions in the open market; or (ii) reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences. 11. A reading of Rule 10B(l)(e)(iii) of the Rules read with Sec.92CA of the Act, would clearly shows that the net profit margin arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions has to be adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market. 12. Chapters I and III of the OECD Transfer Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... A company with high levels of inventory would similarly need to either borrow to fund the purchase, or reduce the amount of cash surplus which it is able to invest. Note that the interest rate July 2010 Page 6 might be affected by the funding structure (e.g. where the purchase of inventory is partly funded by equity) or by the risk associated with holding specific types of inventory) 16. Making a working capital adjustment is an attempt to adjust for the differences in time value of money between the tested party and potential comparables, with an assumption that the difference should be reflected in profits. The underlying reasoning is that: A company will need funding to cover the time gap between the time it invests money (i.e. pays money to supplier) and the time it collects the investment (i.e. collects money from customers) This time gap is calculated as: the period needed to sell inventories to customers + (Plus) the period needed to collect money from customers - (less) the period granted to pay debts to suppliers." 14. Examples of how to work out adjustment on account of working capital adjustment is also given in the said guidelines. The guideline also expre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the impugned order. In the matter of determination of Arm's Length Price, it cannot be said that the burden is on the Assessee or the Department to show what is the Arm's Length Price. The data available with the Assessee and the Department would be the starting point and depending on the facts and circumstances of a case further details can be called for. As far as the Assessee is concerned, the facts and figures with regard to his business has to be furnished. Regarding comparable companies, one has to fall back upon only on the information available in the public domain. If that information is insufficient, it is beyond the power of the Assessee to produce the correct information about the comparable companies. The Revenue has on the other hand powers to compel production of the required details from the comparable companies. If that power is not exercised to find out the truth then it is no defence to say that the Assessee has not furnished the required details and on that score deny adjustment on account of working capital differences. Regarding applying the daily balances of inventory, receivables and payables for computing working capital adjustment, the Delhi Benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the case of the CIT (A) that differences in working capital requirements of the international transaction and the uncontrolled comparable transactions is not a difference which will materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market. If for reasons given by CIT (A) working capital adjustment cannot be allowed to the profit margins, then the comparable uncontrolled transactions chosen for the purpose of comparison will have to be treated as not comparable in terms of Rule 10B(3) of the Rules, which provides as follows: "(3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if- (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged to paid in, or the profit arising from, such transactions in the open market; or (ii) reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences." 18. In such a scenario there would remain no comparable uncontrolled transactions for the purpose of comparison. The transfer pricing exercise would therefore fail. Therefore....