AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 811
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / learned AO/learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the Transfer Pricing (TP') analysis undertaken by the Appellant. Receipt of brokerage commission 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / learned AO /learned CIT(A) failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish that Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM") is not the Most Appropriate Method ('MAM') for the determination of the arm's length price ('ALP') in respect of the transaction pertaining to provision of broking services to associated enterprises (AEs'). 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / learned AO /learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting TNMM as the MAM for the determination of the ALP of the international transaction of brokerage commission received by the Appellant from its AEs. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / learned Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) learned CIT(A) has erred in applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP') method as the MAM for benchmarking th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngth price in relation to the international transaction in accordance with Section 92C(3) of the Act, following any of the prescribed methods. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/ learned AO / learned CIT(A) erred by failing to discharge the burden of proof while rejecting the CUP analysis / corroborative TNMM analysis undertaken by the Appellant for the determination of the ALP in respect of the transaction pertaining to payment of royalty/ Branding fess. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / learned AO /learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the CUP analysis / corroborative TNMM analysis undertaker by the Appellant, for the determination of the ALP of the international transaction of payment of royalty/ Branding fees. 14. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned TPO / learned AO / learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that sufficient data was available to demonstrate external Comparable in the form of royalty rates published by the Secretariat of Industrial Assistance. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the learned TPO/ learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Transaction Tax ('STT) of Rs 4,42,545 to the total income of the Appellant disregarding the fact that the Appellant (i) did not claim deduction for such STT in computing its taxable income, and (i) merely acts as a stock-broker for its Client dealings resulting in STT and such STT is a liability of the clients of the Appellant. Disallowance of transaction charges under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 24. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/CIT(A) erred in disallowing transaction charges of Rs 2,06,75,227 paid to Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE') and National Stock Exchange ('NSE') under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for not withholding taxes under section 194J of the Act. 25. Without prejudice to above, the learned AO / CIT (A) erred in disallowing transaction charges without acknowledging the fact that historicaly both, the Revenue and the Appellant, were under the bona fide belief that the transaction charges paid to the stock exchanges are not subjected to tax withholding. Disallowance of OASYS Global STP charges under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 26. On the facts and circumstances of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and 142(1) were duly issued and served upon the assessee. 5. The learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) observed that the assessee has entered into various international transactions which are reported in Form No. 10CEB for which the ld. A.O. made a reference to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (ld. TPO for short) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for the purpose of determining whether the International transaction entered into with the AE's are at arm's length price (ALP for short). The ld. A.O. passed the final assessment order dated 29.12.2008 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs. 123,59,72,135/- by making various additions/disallowances on corporate grounds and transfer pricing additions, after duly considering the ld. TPO's recommendation vide order dated 29.10.2008. The additions/disallowances made by the ld. A.O. are tabulated hereunder: Additions/disallowances Amount (Rs.) Disallowance on account of non-deduction of tax under section 40(a)(ia) 2,23,61,033 Transfer pricing adjustments - Brokerage 6,80,97,636 - Payment of brand fees 1,45,52,584 - Indirect overhead allocation 6,60,60,930 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... + Rs. 11,96,375/-) from its AE's. The assessee has worked out the rate of commission to be 0.13% of the turnover in the case of clearing house transaction and 0.04% in case of futures transaction and had bench marked the said transaction using TNMM. The ld. TPO observed that the assessee has charged 0.2326% to the overseas non AE's for clearing house trade segment and 0.06% on future segment and concluded that the assessee has charged higher rate of commission from overseas non AE's compared to that of its AE's for both the services. The ld. TPO proposed CUP method for bench marking the said transaction. The assessee contended that the nature of service rendered to each clients varied depending upon the corporate access, analyst access, research, regularity of business, sales and trading coverage, client's creditworthiness, etc. for which the rates charged would vary from one client to another. The assessee further contended that the services rendered to independent party cannot be compared with that of the AE's as there will always be a change in volume and the nature of service and, therefore, the charges on unrelated parties cannot be compared with that of the related parties. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, prayed that a consistent view is to be taken for the impugned year also. 15. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short), on the other hand, controverted the said facts and stated that the assessee has failed to substantiate why the brokerage/commission rate of non AE's are over and above that of the AE's and has also failed to establish why the cost of services, the nature of services, etc. are different from the non AE's. The ld. DR further stated that CUP method is more appropriate than TNMM as per the OECD guidelines and had further contended that the assessee itself has followed CUP method as MAM for A.Y. 2004-05. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue pertaining to this ground is the charging of higher rate of brokerage commission levied on overseas non AE's has to be the arm's length price for the AE's for similar services rendered by the assessee and also the method to be adopted for determination of the ALP for the said brokerage receipt, i.e., whether TNMM or CUP method to be the most appropriate method. The assessee's contention ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. TPO has stated in his order that TNMM method cannot be adopted in this case where the difference in product and services relate to unrelated parties are identifiable based on the documentation available with the assessee, the TPO has not given a detailed finding as to how he has arrived at the said contention. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that as this issue is a recurring one, which has been dealt with by the Tribunal in assessee's case for various years, we do not find any change in the circumstances or the nature of transaction entered into by the assessee with its AE during the year under consideration. We, therefore, deem it fit to allow these grounds of appeal raised by the assessee by holding the said transaction to be at arm's length and TNMM to be the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price (ALP for short). Hence, ground nos. 3 to 10 raised by the assessee is allowed. 19. Ground nos. 11 to 16 raised by the assessee pertains to the payment of royalty/branding fee. The facts are that the assessee had paid royalty of Rs. 1,45,52,584/- for the use of brand name to Credit Lyonnais Securities Asia B.V., the Netherlands (CLSA BV) as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of the Act. The RBI's approval also does not specify to which entity i.e., CLSA Hongkong HA and CLSA BV, the payment is to be made by the assessee for the ownership of the brand. It is also observed that the assessee has paid the brand fee w.e.f 19.02.2002 whereas the application to RBI was made on 29.02.2002 which negates the contention of the assessee. The ld. TPO has also specified that inspite of the fact that CLSA has various group entities in Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Philipenes, Shanghai (China), Shenzhen (China), Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand and except for the assessee company no one else has paid royalty to CLSA BV for use of its brand and neither has the group entities in Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan and Sri Lanka has paid any royalty. The ld. TPO held that the comparable uncontrolled transaction method is the most appropriate method to determine the ALP of the said transaction and that the TNMM method of comparing net profit margin of the company at entity level does not hold good in the present case. The ld. A.O./TPO made an upward adjustment of Rs. 1,45,52,584/- to be the ALP of the international transaction pertaining to the pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised by the assessee pertains to the payment of indirect cost. The facts of these grounds are that the assessee and CLSA Hong Kong had entered into an indirect expenses reimbursement agreement dated 01.04.2003 for the purpose of reimbursement of indirect expenditure incurred at group level, which pertains to remuneration and travel and entertainment cost of sales team stationed in London and New york who are engaged exclusively for the assessee's business. The breakup of reimbursement of expenses is tabulated hereunder for ease of reference: For the period from April 1 2004 to March 31 2005 (Amount in USD'000s) Allocation key London office New York Office Total 1 Sales staff expenses Actual 489 535 1024 2 Travel & Entertainment Allocated per headcounts 40 118 158 3 Office premises cost Actual 21 117 38 4 Telecommunications Actual 7 13 20 5 Professional fee Actual 0 15 15 6 Depreciation Actual 0 1 1 7 Market Data Services Actual 15 17 32 8 IT Services Actual 0 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is observed that the ld. A.O./TPO has not applied any of the prescribed methods mentioned in the provisions to determine the ALP of the said transactions and had rejected the ALP determined by the assessee by holding that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim by any documentary evidences. 27. The ld. AR for the assessee stated that the issue of payment on indirect cost has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's case for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 where it has been held that the assessee has bench marked the transaction by using TNMM method as one of the prescribed method u/s. 92C of the Act, whereas the ld. TPO/A.O. has merely made an adhoc addition without prescribing to any of the methods as per the provisions of the Act and had thereby deleted the impugned addition. The facts of this ground is identical to that of earlier years where the Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the assessee with no change in facts and circumstances during the year under consideration. Hence, we deem it fit to direct the ld. A.O. to delete the impugned addition made on account of reimbursement of indirect overhead expenses. Therefore, ground nos. 17 to 22 raised by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions, it is very much clear that the liability to pay STT is on the Stock Exchanges. The assessee is merely acting as an agent of the Stock Exchanges for collecting STT from the buyers and sellers of the shares while facilitating those transactions as a broker. Thus, it is very much clear that the liability to pay STT is not on the assessee. Moreover, it is evident, the assessee has not debited the STT to the Profit & Loss Account. Rather, he has shown it as a Balance Sheet item under the head Liability. That being the case, the liability of STT which the assessee is merely a custodian of, cannot be treated as liability of the nature coming within the ambit of section 43B(a) of the Act. The decisions relied upon by the leaned Sr. Counsel for the assessee also supports this view. Accordingly, we direct the deletion of disallowance made under section 43B(a) of the Act. These grounds are allowed. 30. By respectfully following the above said decision, we hereby allow ground no. 23 raised by the assessee and, therefore, direct the ld. A.O. to delete the disallowance made u/s. 43B(a) of the Act. 31. Ground nos. 24 to 26 raised by the assessee relates to the disallowance of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "technical services" appearing in Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the absence of the above distinguishing feature, service, though rendered, would be mere in the nature of a facility offered or available which would not be covered by the aforesaid provision of the Act. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter which, in our considered view, would require a specific notice. The service made available by the Bombay Stock Exchange [BSE Online Trading (BOLT) System] for which the charges in question had been paid by the appellant - assessee are common services that every member of the Stock Exchange is necessarily required to avail of to carry out trading in securities in the Stock Exchange. The view taken by the High Court that a member of the Stock Exchange has an option of trading through an alternative mode is not correct. A member who wants to conduct his daily business in the Stock Exchange has no option but to avail of such services. Each and every transaction by a member involves the use of the services provided by the Stock Exchange for which a member is compulsorily required to pay an additional charge (based on the transaction value) over and a....