Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: TDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Nokia India (P) Ltd.,1st & 2nd Floor, Tower-A, SP Infocity, Plot No.243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I Dudahera, Gurgaon. Vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), CR Building, New Delhi.
November, 06th 2014
          IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               DELHI BENCHES : I : NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JM

                        ITA No.242/Del/2010
                     Assessment Year : 2002-03

                         CO No.77/Del/2010
                       (ITA No.178/Del/2010)
                     Assessment Year : 2002-03

Nokia India (P) Ltd.,           Vs.   DCIT,
1st & 2nd Floor, Tower-A,             Circle-13(1),
SP Infocity, Plot No.243,             CR Building,
Udyog Vihar, Phase-I,                 New Delhi.
Dudahera,
Gurgaon.
PAN : AAACN2170R

                       ITA No.178/Del/2010
                    Assessment Year : 2002-03

DCIT,                           Vs.   Nokia India (P) Ltd.,
Circle-13(1),                         1st & 2nd Floor, Tower-A,
CR Building,                          SP Infocity, Plot No.243,
New Delhi.                            Udyog Vihar, Phase-I,
                                      Dudahera,
                                      Gurgaon.
                                      PAN : AAACN2170R

  (Appellant)                            (Respondent)

            Assessee By     :    S/Shri Atul Ninawat, AR, Vikas
                                 Srivastava, Atul Mittal &
                                 Ms Varsha Bhattacharya, Advocate

            Department By :      Shri Peeyush Jain, CIT, DR
                                                  ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                           CO No.77/Del/2010

                              ORDER


PER R.S. SYAL, AM:


     These two cross appeals ­ one by the assessee and the other

by the Revenue along with a cross objection filed by the assessee

arise out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 16.11.09 in relation

to the assessment year 2002-03.


2.   Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessee's appeal and Ground Nos.

3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Revenue's appeal are against the partial

sustenance/reduction in the addition on account of transfer pricing

adjustment under the Nokia Mobile Phone Sales Division (NMP

Sales) [hereinafter also called the `Trading segment'].


3.   Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a

wholly owned subsidiary of Nokia Corporation, Finland.              Nokia

Group is engaged in providing network solutions for phone

operators and internet service providers; manufacturing and

distributing mobile phones; providing strategic inputs for business

developments; and providing R&D support to the group entities for

maintaining its technological leadership and competitiveness. The

assessee has four distinct business segments. The major segment

is Nokia Mobile Phones Sales Division or the Trading segment.

                                  2
                                                     ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                              CO No.77/Del/2010

Under this segment, the assessee acts as a distributor of mobile

phones imported from Nokia affiliates throughout India, mainly

through HCL Infosystems (third party distributor).           To be more

specific, the assessee acts as a trader of Nokia phones which are

sold mainly to single customer, HCL Infosystems, after importing

from its Associated enterprises (AEs).     HCL Infosystems further

distributes the phones through its own network of dealers.               The

assessee declared sales of `59 crore and operating loss of `13.9

crore under this segment. In benchmarking this international

transaction, the assessee selected Resale Price Method (RPM) as

the most appropriate method.         Gross profit margin under this

segment at 11% was stated to be more than the arithmetic mean

of such margin, on a multiple year data basis, of 9% in respect of

23   comparable   companies    chosen     by   the    assessee.          The

assessee's list of 23 comparables with the business description and

the ratio of GP/sales has been tabulated on pages 3 and 4 of the

Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) order. That is how, it was claimed

that the international transactions under this segment were at

arm's length price (ALP).   The TPO observed that the companies

chosen by the assessee were engaged in altogether different

nature of business.   Some were distributing food products, while

others were trading in electronic goods or textiles etc.         On being
                                 3
                                                  ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                           CO No.77/Del/2010

called upon to explain as to why RPM adopted by the assessee be

not rejected on account of high degree of functional and economic

divergence among the comparables and the assessee, it was

stated that all the comparables performed the basic function of

trading and distribution.      Unconvinced with the assessee's

submissions, the TPO held that such a method was not capable of

application because apart from dissimilarity of the products dealt

with by the assessee vis-a-vis the so-called comparables, even the

data of the comparables chosen by the assessee was not

appropriately available. He, therefore, rejected the application of

RPM and proceeded to determine the ALP under the Transactional

Net Margin Method (TNMM). He adopted profit level indicator (PLI)

of the international transactions under this segment at Operating

profit margin/Sales. By applying certain filters, the TPO shortlisted

six comparables as listed on page 11 of his order, giving arithmetic

mean of 3.5%. Considering the fact that the assessee spent 23%

of its sales on marketing, whereas this expenditure was much less

in the comparables so chosen by him, the TPO suitably amended

the rate of operating profit. However, vide para 11.2 of his order,

the TPO noticed that accounts of one of the close competitors of

the assessee (whose name was not disclosed for reasons of

confidentiality) gave OP/Sales at 2.64%, whereas this ratio in the
                                  4
                                                  ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                           CO No.77/Del/2010

case of the assessee was at (-) 23%.       After considering certain

factors and allowing the effect of higher marketing expenses, the

adjusted profit margin of the assessee was worked out at (-)

8.99%. That is how, the transfer pricing adjustment amounting to

`7,37,39,213/- in this segment was made at 12.49% [3.5%- (-)

8.99%].


4.      In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) came to hold that RPM was

not capable of application as it was difficult to compute gross

margin by analyzing costs and then establish the functional

comparability of the comparables chosen by the assessee.                He

upheld the TPO's action in employing TNMM as the most

appropriate method. He further noticed that both the assessee as

well as the TPO were not justified in not using the current year

data.     Relying on certain decisions, it was held that only the

current year's data was required to be employed.              Then, he

proceeded to examine the comparable companies as offered by

the assessee and also those chosen by the TPO.              Out of 23

comparables chosen by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) shortlisted four

companies as functionally comparable under the TNMM. From the

companies chosen by the TPO as comparable, the ld. CIT(A)

accepted four companies as comparable, one of which is common

                                   5
                                                   ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                            CO No.77/Del/2010

to both the assessee as well as the TPO. That is how the ld. CIT(A)

initially shortlisted the following seven companies:-


  (i)     Compuage Infocom Ltd.

  (ii)    Media Video Ltd.

  (iii)   Business Link Automation

  (iv)    Procal Electronics India Ltd.

  (v)     Redington (India) Ltd.

  (vi)    Amzel Automotive Ltd.

  (vii)   Gold Rock Investments Ltd.


Out of these seven companies, the ld. CIT(A) excluded Procal

Electronics India Ltd. which had a high negative margin of (-)

39.58% during the financial year relevant to the assessment year

under consideration,    primarily due to excess depreciation cost

along with significant drop in the sales as compared to the

previous year. He further excluded Redington (India) Ltd. on the

premise that it had very high turnover in comparison with the

assessee. That is how,       the ld. CIT(A) was finally chose five

companies as comparable with their respective OP/Sales margin as

hereunder:-




                                   6
                                                       ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                                CO No.77/Del/2010

     (i)       Compuage Infocom Ltd.                     2.25%

     (ii)      Media Video Ltd.                          6.77%

     (iii)     Amzel Automotive Ltd.                     3.88%

     (iv)      Business Link Automation (India) Ltd.     2.81%

     (v)       Gold rock Investments Ltd.                0.35%

               Average                                   3.21%


He held that only the current year's data should have been

considered. He further held that the TPO was not justified in

benchmarking the assessee's international transactions under this

segment with a competitor whose name was not disclosed. In his

opinion, a detailed review of Annual report and Director's report,

etc., must be made available to the assessee before considering

any case as comparable.           He, therefore, excluded the secretly

selected case chosen by the TPO. Then, he went on to consider

advertisement and marketing expenses incurred by the assessee

as well as the final five comparables.        After allowing a suitable

adjustment on this score, the TPO reduced the addition on account

of transfer pricing adjustment to ` 3,41,62,617/-. Both the sides

are in appeal against their respective stands.


5.         We have heard the rival submissions and perused the

relevant material on record. The first major controversy raised by

                                       7
                                                   ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                            CO No.77/Del/2010

the assessee is on the selection of the most appropriate method

for determining ALP of the international transactions under this

segment. Whereas, the stand of the assessee is that RPM was

correctly employed by it for benchmarking its international

transactions under this segment, the stand of the Revenue is that

TNMM has been rightly held to be the most appropriate method

for the purposes of determination of the ALP.


6.   Section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also

called `the Act`) provides that "the arm's length price in relation to

an international transaction shall be determined by any of the

following methods, being, the most appropriate method,             having

regard to the nature of transaction or class of transactions or class

of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or

such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe."               Five

specific methods have been given, which include, RPM and TNMM.

The sixth method is general as may be prescribed by the Board.

There is no quarrel on the point that the sixth method, now

prescribed under rule 10AB, is not applicable to the assessment

year under consideration as the same is operative from the A.Y.

2012-13.    Sub-section (2) of section 92C provides that the most

appropriate method referred to in sub-section (1) shall be applied

                                  8
                                                    ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                             CO No.77/Del/2010

for determination of ALP in the manner as may be prescribed. Rule

10B sets out the procedure under the above referred five methods.

Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10B reiterates that the ALP in relation to an

international transaction shall be determined by any of the

prescribed methods being the most appropriate method.                When

we read section 92C in juxtaposition to Rule 10B, two things

become vivid. First is that the ALP of an international transaction

is required to be determined by a most appropriate method which

has to be either of the five given in section 92C(1) at the material

time. Second is that such computation can be done only in the

manner as is prescribed under the rule. The instant controversy

narrows down to examining and deciding as to whether RPM or

TNMM     is   the   most   appropriate    method     in    the     present

circumstances.


7.   Before ascertaining the most appropriate method as may be

applicable in the factual scenario obtaining instantly, it is crucial to

have a look at the functions performed and the nature of activity

undertaken by the assessee under this segment.            At the cost of

repetition, we are mentioning that the assessee purchased mobile

phones and accessories from Nokia group companies situated

outside India and sold the same to local independent customers,

                                   9
                                                   ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                            CO No.77/Del/2010

mainly, HCL Infosystems. The TPO has also admitted this fact that

the international transactions under this segment involve import of

mobile phones and accessories from foreign AEs which are resold

in India to HCL Infosystems, which is an unrelated party. Thus, it is

palpable that the nature of work done by the assessee under this

segment is that of pure a trader inasmuch as the mobile phones

and accessories imported from foreign AEs have been resold as

such to the local customers without doing any value addition or

any other sort of processing whatsoever.


8.    We take up the first issue that the ALP of an international

transaction should be determined by a most appropriate method

which has to be either of the five given in section 92C(1) at the

material time.   It will be apposite to first set out the modus

operandi of the RPM, being the method chosen by the assessee as

the most appropriate method, given under Rule 10B(1)(b) for

determination of ALP as under:-


     (b) resale price method, by which,--


     (i) the price at which property purchased or services obtained

     by the enterprise from an associated enterprise is resold or

     are provided to an unrelated enterprise, is identified ;


                                  10
                                              ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                       CO No.77/Del/2010

(ii) such resale price is reduced by the amount of a normal

gross profit margin accruing to the enterprise or to an

unrelated enterprise from the purchase and resale of the

same or similar property or from obtaining and providing the

same or similar services, in a comparable uncontrolled

transaction, or a number of such transactions ;


(iii) the price so arrived at is further reduced by the expenses

incurred by the enterprise in connection with the purchase of

property or obtaining of services ;





(iv) the price so arrived at is adjusted to take into account the

functional and other differences, including differences in

accounting practices, if any, between the international

transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or

between the enterprises entering into such transactions,

which could materially affect the amount of gross profit

margin in the open market ;


(v)   the adjusted price arrived at under sub-clause (iv) is

taken to be an arm's length price in respect of the purchase

of the property or obtaining of the services by the enterprise

from the associated enterprise ;


                             11
                                                     ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                              CO No.77/Del/2010

9.    Sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Rule 10B(1) deals with

identifying the price at which the goods purchased from an AE is

resold. Sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Rule 10B(1) talks of reducing

the   amount   of   normal   gross     profit   margin   of   comparable

uncontrolled transactions from such resale price of the assessee.

Sub-clause (iii) states that the result of sub-clause (ii) is further

reduced by the expenses incurred in connection with the purchase

of goods and sub-clause (iv) provides that the amount so deduced

under sub-clause (iii) is adjusted on account of differences in the

international transaction and comparable uncontrolled transactions

which materially affect the amount of gross profit margin in the

open market. Finally, sub-clause (v) provides that the adjusted

price found under sub-clause (iv) is taken as arm's length price in

respect of purchase of goods from the AE. When we consider the

methodology given under RPM, more specifically sub-clauses (i)

and (v), it becomes patent that sub-clause (i) refers to `property

purchased by the enterprise ... is resold ` and sub-clause (v) refers

to `arm's length price in respect of the purchase of the property ...

by the enterprise '. A close scrutiny of the above two sub-clauses

along with the remaining sub-clauses of rule 10B(1)(b) makes it

clear beyond doubt that RPM is best suited for determining ALP of

an international transaction in the nature of       purchase of goods
                                  12
                                                    ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                             CO No.77/Del/2010

from an AE which are resold as such to unrelated parties.

Ordinarily, this method pre-supposes no or insignificant value

addition to the goods purchased from foreign AE.          In a case the

goods   so   purchased   are   used   either   as   raw    material       for

manufacturing finished products or are further subjected to

processing before resale, then RPM cannot be characterized as a

proper method for benchmarking the international transaction of

purchase of goods by the Indian enterprise from the foreign AE.


10.     Adverting to the facts of the instant case, we find that the

assessee simply purchased mobile phones and accessories from

Nokia group companies situated outside India and resold the same

as such without any further value addition, mainly,                to HCL

Infosystems in India. Since the goods imported from the foreign

AEs representing the international transaction under this segment

were neither processed further nor used as raw material for

manufacturing any other product, in our considered opinion, RPM is

the first choice as the most appropriate method for determination

of ALP of the international transaction under this segment.


11.   The ld. DR vehemently argued against the application of RPM

in the given circumstances as the most appropriate method by

contending that the assessee incurred huge advertisement and

                                 13
                                                 ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                          CO No.77/Del/2010

marketing expenses. In view of such incurring of expenses, the ld.

DR stated that the better course would be to apply TNMM which

would consider operating profit.      We are unable to accept the

contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue. The obvious reason

for this is that the incurring of high advertisement and marketing

expenses by the assessee vis-a-vis          the other comparable

companies does not in any manner affect the determination of ALP

under the RPM. When we consider gross profit in numerator and

net sales in denominator, all the expenses debited to the Profit &

loss account automatically stand excluded. It is but natural that

only those expenses can have bearing on the gross profit that are

debited to the Trading account. As the amount of advertisement

and marketing expenses falls `below the line' and finds its place in

the Profit and loss account, the higher or lower spend on it cannot

affect the amount of gross profit and the resultant ALP under the

RPM. If the assessee has incurred more expenses on advertisement

and promotion, which, in the opinion of the ld. DR went on to brand

building for an AE, then, the transfer pricing adjustment on account

of such AMP expenses was separately called for.       Since the TPO

has not made any separate adjustment on account of AMP

expenses and has given effect to the same under TNMM, we hold

that the incurring of such higher advertisement and marketing
                                 14
                                                      ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                               CO No.77/Del/2010

spend would not affect the calculation of ALP under the RPM. Ex

consequenti, we hold that RPM prima facie appears to be the most

appropriate method in the facts and circumstances of the instant

case.


12. At this juncture, we note the mandate of Rule 10C which

defines the `Most appropriate method'. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10C

states that: "For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 92C, the

most appropriate method shall be the method which is best suited

to the facts and circumstances of each particular international

transaction, and which provides the most reliable measure of an

arm's length in relation to the international transaction." Sub-rule

(2) of Rule 10C lists certain factors which should be taken into

account in selecting the most appropriate method as specified in

sub-rule (1).     These factors, inter alia, include -             `(c), the

availability,   coverage   and   reliability   of   data   necessary        for

application of the method'; and `(d) the degree of comparability

existing between the international transaction and the uncontrolled

transaction ...'. An overview of the factors prescribed for choosing

the most appropriate method indicates that firstly, the data

necessary for application of the given method should be available

and secondly, the uncontrolled transactions should be functionally

                                   15
                                                  ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                           CO No.77/Del/2010

similar, if not identical.   A company, in order to be ranked as

comparable under the RPM, should preferably be engaged in doing

similar activity as that of the assessee or at least of the same

genus of the activity albeit with a different species.      The above

discussion boils down that if a particular method though on the

face of it appears to be the most appropriate method by

considering the nature of transaction and other relevant factors,

but, is incapable of application either because of the non-

availability/unreliability of the data of the comparables as required

under the given method or for want of functional similarity of the

available cases or for any other reason as given in clause (2) of

rule 10C, then, such a method initially chosen as comparable, is

required to be discarded for replacement with the second best

method that satisfies the requirements of rule 10C(2).


13. We have noticed above that in the given circumstances, RPM

is the first choice for consideration as the most appropriate

method. While discussing the modus operandi given under RPM,

we have noticed that sub-clause (ii) provides for calculation of

gross profit margin as a percentage of sales in respect of

comparable uncontrolled transactions. This primarily contains two




                                  16
                                                  ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                           CO No.77/Del/2010

things, viz., first, the selection of comparables and second, the

availability of their data enabling computation as prescribed.


14.    Espousing the first issue of selection of comparables, it is

seen that the assessee chose the RPM as the most appropriate

method by selecting 23 companies as comparable in its TP study

report. A cursory look at the functional profiles of these companies

transpires that some of them are in entirely different line of

business.   Obviously, such companies cannot be considered as

comparable. The ld. AR was fair enough to concede this position

by admitting that the companies which are not comparable should

be excluded from the list of comparables.         To cut short the

controversy, it was stated by the ld. AR that he was agreeable with

the four companies chosen by the ld. CIT(A) as comparable with

the exception of Media Video Ltd. whose exclusion was assailed.

Apart from that, the ld. AR further requested for the inclusion of

Procal Electronics India Ltd., which was included by the ld. CIT(A)

in the initial list of seven comparables, but, was later on excluded

by stating that it had high negative margin of 39.58%.


15.     Now, we will examine as to whether M/s Media Video Ltd.,

was rightly included by the ld. CIT(A) in the list of comparables.

The ld. AR contended that the related party transactions (RPTs) of

                                 17
                                                   ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                            CO No.77/Del/2010

this company were more than 40% and, hence, the same should be

excluded from the list of comparables. To bolster this submission,

the ld. AR invited our attention towards the Annual report of this

company. He referred to a chart prepared by him on page 520 of

the paper book deducing figures from the Annual report of Media

Video Ltd.    The percentage of RPTs at more than 40 of this

company was demonstrated by taking in the numerator all the

international transactions of (i) purchase of goods and material; (ii)

sale of goods and raw materials; (iii) rend paid; and (iv) service

income. A sum total of the value of these four international

transactions was taken as numerator with the figure of sales as the

denominator. It was further argued that the RPT filter of 15% was

reasonable. The sum and substance of his submission was that if

all the RPTs of a company are more than 15% of its sales, then

such company should not be considered as comparable.


16.   We find that this submission has two components, viz., the

composition of numerator and denominator and the percentage of

such numerator to the denominator. We agree in principle that if

any company though functionally comparable, but, has more than

a specific percentage of the RPTs, then, the same should be

ignored by treating it as a controlled transaction. However, the

                                  18
                                                   ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                            CO No.77/Del/2010

percentage of RPTs to make a company as ineligible for

comparison, in our considered opinion, should be taken as more

than 25% and not 15% as suggested on behalf of the assessee.

The view adopting more than 25% RPTs making a company

incomparable has been taken by various benches of tribunal

including Aglient Technologies International P. Ltd. VS. ACIT (2013)

36 CCH 187 Del Trib ; Stream International Services Pvt. Ltd. VS.

ADIT (IT) (2013) 152 TTJ (Mumbai) 553 ; and Actis Advisers Pvt.

Ltd. VS. DCIT (2012) 20 ITR (Trib) 138 (Delhi). We, therefore, hold

that a company can be considered as incomparable if its RPTs

exceed 25%.


17.   Now, we take up the second argument of the composition of

numerator and denominator. Ratio of the RPTs represents the

proportion   of   transactions   with   the   associated     enterprises

(numerator) vis-a-vis the total of transactions (denominator).            In

order to decide that what should constitute the contents of

numerator and denominator for the purposes of finding out the

percentage of RPTs, it is relevant to note the logic behind applying

this filter. It is manifest that the aim of the transfer pricing regime

is to ensure that the international transactions are recorded at

arm's length price. This is done under the TNMM by comparing the

                                  19
                                                       ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                                CO No.77/Del/2010

profit earned from the international transaction with that earned by

the comparable independent parties in an uncontrolled situation.

Thus, while choosing comparables, it must be ensured that the

profit earned by them correctly reflects true profit as is earned by

an enterprise from an independent third party. If such a chosen

company, though functionally comparable, has also entered into

international transactions beyond a particular percentage with the

related parties, it is quite possible that its overall profit may have

been   distorted     due   to   such    transactions   rendering        it   as

incomparable. That is why, this filter is applied to make certain that

a company sought to be considered as comparable should have its

profit uninfluenced by the impact of the related party transactions.


18.    In view of the foregoing discussion, it is manifest that the

transactions which do not impact the profitability, such as loan

given or taken or other items finding place in the balance sheet,

can have no place either in the numerator or the denominator of

this   formula.      However,     any      income      or      expenditure

resulting/relating   from/to or likely to result/relate       from/to such

items of assets or liabilities, should not be confused with the per se

international transactions finding place in the balance sheet of the

company calling for exclusion.

                                   20
                                                  ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                           CO No.77/Del/2010

19.   The numerator of this formula consists of all the related party

transactions of a company sought to be chosen as comparable

which affect the profit earned directly from operations. If, however

a related party transaction is of such a nature which does not

directly affect or insignificantly affects the profit earned from the

bare profit producing activity, then it should not be taken into

consideration. The reason for the exclusion of such related party

transactions from the numerator is that they have not at all or very

insignificantly affected the operating profit of such a company,

which is the driving force for the purposes of making a comparison

under the TNMM. To cite an example, the RPT of rent paid by a

company which is engaged in the business of trading or

manufacturing cannot constitute a part of the numerator, because

transaction of rent payment has no direct bearing on the trading or

manufacturing activity.


20.    Now, we take up the contents of the denominator of this

formula. The percentage of numerator to denominator can be

calculated only when the contents of a part representing the RPT of

a particular nature is seen with reference to the contents of whole

of that nature. Both the numerator and denominator have to have

the same nature of contents.     This can be done by segregating

                                 21
                                                  ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                           CO No.77/Del/2010

transactions of one nature, like, comparing RPT of purchase with

the total purchases or RPT of sales with the total amount of sales of

the company. It is also possible to club small transactions of a

distinct   but related income producing activity with a large

transactions of major income producing activity as one unit, both

in the numerator as well as in the denominator. For example, RPT

of major sale transaction and minor job income can be combined to

find out the percentage of RPTs with the total of sales and job

income taken together.      In a given case, similar to what is

prevailing before us, where the RPTs comprise of purchase, sales,

small non-operating expenses and service income, we can

preferably find out two percentages of RPTs by ignoring the RPT of

payment of non-operating expense of rent, which does not directly

affect the profit earned from trading activity. First percentage of

RPT purchases with total purchases and second of RPT sales and

service income as one unit with the total of sales and service

income again as one unit.     The decision as to whether such a

company be included in the list of comparables by applying the

filter of more than 25% RPT, would depend on the outcome of two

such percentages of RPTs. If either of the two breaches the 25%

threshold, then the company will cease to be comparable. If

however, both the percentages are less than 25%, then the
                                 22
                                                           ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                                    CO No.77/Del/2010

company would be liable for inclusion in the list of comparables.

We want to make it clear that the above discussion about the

components of RPT formula is relevant only in the case of an

assessee   who    is   a   Trader/Distributor        and     not     a    Service

provider/receiver or a Manufacturer.          Since we are concerned in

the extant case with the application of RPT filter in the case of a

Trader, we have restricted ourselves only to a trader and have thus

desisted   from   examining    the        contents   and      other      relevant

considerations in the application of this filter to a Service

provider/receiver or a Manufacturer.


21.   Turning to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that the

assessee   has    computed     the        percentage   of       related      party

transactions of Media Video Ltd. by clubbing all the four types of

international transactions in the numerator, viz., Purchase of goods

and materials; Sale of goods and materials; Rent paid; and Service

Income, all totaling Rs.22,43,46,000 and the amount of net sales

as denominator at Rs.55,25,22,266.            We fail to appreciate the

rationale of the manner in which this exercise has been carried out

by the assessee for computing the percentage of RPTs of this

company at 40.60%. All the debit and credit items of trading and

profit and loss account representing related party transactions

                                     23
                                                  ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                           CO No.77/Del/2010

have been taken as numerator, but when the question of choosing

denominator came, the assessee preferred to pick only the figure

of net sales of this company. This approach is absolutely illogical

and lacks credibility. The ld. AR argued that even if the approach

adopted by him was not acceptable, still, the RPTs of Media Video

Ltd., were more than 25%. However, he admitted not to readily

have such figures to substantiate his contention. We find that the

international transactions of rent paid by this company at

`1,46,000 is quite insignificant and this transaction has no relation

with its main source of the income producing activity, viz., Sales

and Service charges. The same is, therefore, directed to be

excluded from consideration in the numerator.       In so far as the

other international transactions of this company are concerned,

their percentage of RPTs is required to be considered as discussed

above by comparing the RPTs of purchases with total purchase and

the RPTs of sales and service income with the total of sales and

service income.     Since thorough examination of the Annual

accounts of this company is necessary to deduce these figures, we

are of the considered opinion that this exercise should be left to be

done by the TPO at his end. We, therefore, direct the TPO to redo

this exercise for M/s Media Video Ltd., in accordance with our

above discussion for ascertaining whether this company should
                                 24
                                                     ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                              CO No.77/Del/2010

continue in or be excluded from the final list of comparables drawn

by the ld. CIT(A).    If the percentage of RPTs as discussed above

finally comes to more than 25%, then, this company should be

excluded from the list of comparables. In the otherwise situation,

the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables is justified.


22. Now, we turn to M/s Procal Electronics India Ltd., which the ld.

AR insists for inclusion in the list of comparables. The ld. DR, on

the perusal of the Annual accounts of this company, submitted that

this company was engaged in manufacturing as well as trading

and,   hence,   the   same   cannot    be   included    in   the     list   of

comparables. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee is

simply engaged in the trading activity under this segment. In such

a situation, a company can be included in the list of comparables

only if either it is not engaged in manufacturing or the segmental

results, if any of its trading segment are available. The ld. AR was

fair enough to concede that if the segmental results of this

company from the trading segment are not available, then, it

should not be included in the list of comparables.


23.    We, therefore, set aside the impugned order on this issue and

remit the matter to the file of the TPO/AO for examining as to

whether the financial results of M/s Procal Electronics India Ltd. are

                                  25
                                                 ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                          CO No.77/Del/2010

available for the trading segment.      If these are found to be

available, then, such segmental results should be included. In the

otherwise situation, the order excluding this company from the list

of comparables is justified.


24.   As far as the Revenue's ground against the exclusion of some

of the companies chosen by the TPO is concerned, the ld. DR,

except for relying on the order passed by the TPO, could not point

out any cogent reason for including such disclosed companies in

the final list of comparables which were chosen by the TPO, but,

rejected by the ld. CIT(A). It can be seen that the ld. CIT(A) has

given valid reasons for rejecting the declared companies chosen by

the TPO, such as, M/s Batliboi Ltd. which is dealing in industrial

machinery and M/s Controlled Printing India Ltd., which is engaged

in the business of trading in coding and marketing machines. Ergo,

we uphold the impugned order to the extent of exclusion of some

of the disclosed companies which were chosen by the TPO. The ld.

DR contended that the undisclosed company (secret comparable)

was strictly in the assessee's line of business and presented a good

comparable. It was, therefore, requested that the same be directed

to be included in the list of comparables. We partly agree with the

contention advanced by the ld. DR on this score. There can be no

                                 26
                                                   ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                            CO No.77/Del/2010

question of a secret comparable. It goes without saying that if

there is a company which is comparable, then the same should be

included in the list of comparables, so as to make an effective

comparison. At the same time, no company can be considered by

the TPO as comparable, unless the assessee is given a chance to

show that it is not comparable. This can be possibly done only

when all the relevant particulars of such company including its

functional profile and annual accounts are made available to the

assessee giving it an effective and substantive opportunity. As

such, we direct the TPO to disclose all the necessary particulars of

such a secret company including its name etc., if the same is

proposed to be included in the list of comparables. If the assessee

succeeds in showing that this so far secret company is not

comparable, then the same be excluded and vice versa.                  This

disposes of the aspect of selection of companies as comparable.


25.   Having dealt with the first component of sub-clause (ii) of rule

10B(1)(b) about the selection of comparables companies, now we

move on to the second component about the availability of their

data enabling computation as prescribed. On being called upon to

explain the working given by the assessee under the RPM in

respect of companies chosen by it as comparable, the ld. AR took

                                  27
                                                    ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                             CO No.77/Del/2010

us through such calculation, which brought out that the calculation

of gross profit has been wrongly made by reducing purchases from

the figure of sales with the adjustment on account of difference of

inventory, wherever applicable.        It goes without saying that the

calculation of gross profit encompasses the consideration of not

only the figure of purchase as well as inventories, but also of the

direct expenses which are debited to the trading account. The ld.

AR admitted that the figure of gross profit was computed by the

assessee in the manner as demonstrated, i.e., without the effect

on direct expenses incurred by the comparable companies. Such

an approach is totally misplaced inasmuch as it is not possible to

tinker with the modus operandi given in the formula for calculation

of the ALP. The numerator in the formula under the RPM is gross

profit. Obviously, such a numerator cannot be substituted with

anything less or more than the gross profit. The Special bench of

the tribunal in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. VS. ACIT

(2013) 152 TTJ 273 (Del) (SB) has held that `Rule 10B has specified

a set procedure to be followed for determining the ALP distinctly

under the five methods. It is ... not permissible to invent a new

procedure and try to fit such procedure within any of the existing

procedures prescribed as per these methods. No one is authorized

to add one or more new steps in the prescribed procedure or to
                                  28
                                                   ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                            CO No.77/Del/2010

substitute any other mechanism with the one prescribed under the

rule. It is neither possible to invent a new method nor to substitute

a new methodology in place of the one prescribed in the rule.'

Further sub-section (2) of section 92C makes it abundantly clear

that the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (1)

shall be applied for determination of ALP in the manner as may be

prescribed. In the light of the above discussion, it is explicit that

the numerator in the formula given under the RPM cannot be

substituted with anything else. To be more precise, if the figure of

gross profit of the comparables is not readily available from their

annual accounts, then application of the RPM as the most

appropriate method would be jeopardized.


26. When this position was confronted to the ld. AR, he submitted

that the assessee can try to find out the figure of gross profit of the

final list of comparables for working out the ratio of GP to sales in

order to benchmark the international transactions of the assessee

under this segment.     Under such circumstances, we are of the

considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if the

impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the

TPO/AO. It is directed to first try to determine the ALP under RPM

method strictly going by the mandate of Rule 10B(1)(b).             If the

                                  29
                                                  ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                           CO No.77/Del/2010

assessee succeeds in placing before the TPO the figures of gross

profit of the comparables, then, the ALP should be determined by

considering GP/sales of the comparable companies as discussed

above and, thereafter, the prescription of other sub-clauses of Rule

10B(1)(b) be applied.      If the figures of gross profit of the

comparable companies are not available, then, the RPM cannot be

considered as the most appropriate method.               In such an

eventuality, TNMM should be applied with the suitable PLI.


27. With the above directions for a fresh computation of ALP of

the international transactions under the trading segment, the

grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Ground No. 3 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed inasmuch as we

hold that only the current year's data should be applied for

computation of PLI of the tested party as well as comparables.

Ground No.5 of the Revenue's appeal in allowing relief on account

of advertisement and marketing expenses cannot be decided at

this stage because of our direction for firstly applying RPM. Only if

RPM is found to be inapplicable, because of lack of data, etc., the

TNMM will be applied. If such an eventuality arises, then, the TPO

will consider the effect of advertisement and marketing expenses

afresh as per law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being

                                 30
                                                   ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                            CO No.77/Del/2010

heard to the assessee. Ground No.6 of the Revenue's appeal in

allowing adjustment of (+)/(-) 5% of ALP is consequential which has

to be considered in the fresh determination of profit rate of

comparables as well as that of the assessee either under RPM or,

alternatively, under TNMM.


28. Ground nos. 4 and 5 of the assessee's appeal are against the

confirmation   of   disallowance   of   `26,19,816/-   (after    allowing

depreciation @ 20% on total expenses of `34,93,088/-) towards

marketing expenses incurred by the assessee on account of

providing handsets to AMSC's, dealers and employees.


29. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the

relevant material on record, we find that this issue is no more res

integra inasmuch as the Tribunal has restored such issue to the file

of AO by its order in the appeals for assessment years 2000-01 and

2001-02. Respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the

impugned order and remit the matter to the AO for deciding it in

conformity with the direction given by the Tribunal in its order for

the immediately preceding years.


30. Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal is against the deletion

of disallowance of ` 58,72,028/- out of foreign travelling expenses.

The ld.CIT (A) deleted this disallowance made by the AO by
                                   31
                                                  ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                           CO No.77/Del/2010

following the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case

for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. Respectfully following

the precedent, we uphold the impugned order. This ground fails.


31. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal is against the deletion

of disallowance of ` 77,95,857/- out of warranty provision. Here

again, we find that the Tribunal has decided this issue in

assessee's favour in the aforenoted order. This ground also fails.


32. Now we move on to the Revenue's ground no. 7, by which it is

aggrieved against the deletion of addition on account of transfer

pricing adjustment in NET R&D segment and NIC R&D segment.

The factual scenario of this ground is that the assessee rendered

contract services to Nokia Internet Communication (NIC) Research

Centre, Hyderabad, carrying out research on network security

appliances and network management solutions, for which it was

remunerated at cost plus 5%. Gross revenue under this segment

amounted to `5.9 crore.        Apart from this, the assessee also

rendered contract R & D services to Nokia Network Technology, R

& D Division on cost plus 7%. Gross revenue under this segment

amounted to `3.9 crore. The assessee applied TNMM as the most

appropriate   method     for   benchmarking    these     international

transactions with PLI of OP/TC.        The assessee selected 51

                                  32
                                                       ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                                CO No.77/Del/2010




comparable    cases     to   demonstrate   that        the    international

transactions under this segment, on a consolidated basis, were at

ALP. The mean margin of these companies, by taking the weighted

average for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, was taken at 20%.

On account of economic downturn experienced in this year owing

to 11th September disaster, a downward adjustment of 5% was

made in such margin of the comparables. Another 5% downward

adjustment was made to the mean margin on account of working

capital adjustment. The TPO found that the mean margin by use of

the current year data was 19.17%.        He rounded it to 20%. No

deduction on account of downturn, as claimed by the assessee at

5%, was allowed. He took arm's length margin at 15% after

allowing   adjustment   of   5% on     account    of     working       capital

difference. As against the assessee's list of 51 comparable cases,

the TPO selected 60 companies as comparable, which have been

tabulated on pages 17 and 18 of his order. This exercise done by

the TPO resulted into transfer pricing adjustment of `85,20,942/-,

which was added by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the TPO's

action in not granting deduction of 5% on account of downturn.

He, however, excluded three sets of companies from the list of

comparables drawn by the TPO. After such exclusion and allowing

(+)/(-) 5% adjustment, the ld. CIT(A) found that the price charged
                                  33
                                                      ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                               CO No.77/Del/2010

by the assessee from its associated enterprises was at ALP.

Consequently, the addition so made by the AO came to be knocked

down. The Revenue assails the deletion of this addition.


33.         We have heard the rival submissions and perused the

relevant material on record. It is observed that there is no dispute

on any aspect other than the exclusion of three sets of companies

by the ld. CIT(A), which were chosen by the TPO. We will take up

these three sets of companies one by one for consideration and

decision.


34.    The first set contains thirteen companies tabulated on page

65 of the impugned order, which were excluded by the ld. CIT(A)

on the touchstone of the filter of rejecting companies whose ratio

of depreciation to the total cost was less than 5% and more than

50%.   It can be seen from the TPO's order that this filter was

applied by the TPO himself. However, while giving effect to this

filter, the TPO inadvertently failed to exclude these thirteen

companies from the list of comparables, albeit these admittedly

did not qualify for the inclusion on the basis of such filter.            This

contention raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was

remitted to the TPO for examination. Vide remand report dated

24.08.09,     the   TPO   simply   stated   that:   "the   proportion        of

                                    34
                                                   ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                            CO No.77/Del/2010

depreciation as a percentage of cost is a matter of fact and the

same needs to be decided accordingly." Thus, it is amply borne out

that the TPO himself applied this filter for rejecting some of the

companies from the list of comparables and by application of such

filter,   these thirteen companies were also liable to be excluded

which were inadvertently included by the TPO in the list of

comparables.     The application of this filter and these companies

consequently not qualifying for inclusion has not been denied by

the TPO in the remand report, the relevant part of which has been

reproduced above.


35.        Ordinarily, we would not have approved the application of

the filter of excluding some companies on the basis of lower or

higher depreciation as a percentage of total costs (not the

simplicitor quantum of depreciation allowance) .       It is axiomatic

that higher amount of depreciation follows in the initial years of the

installation of machinery or other assets because of the higher

base. With the increase in the age of the asset, the written down

value goes on decreasing, which results into downward sojourn of

the annual amount of deprecation over the years. At the same

time, it is equally true that when asset is new, there are low costs

of repairs and other incidental expenses connected with the

                                  35
                                                    ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                             CO No.77/Del/2010

operation of the assets. Thus it is evident that the effect of higher

amount of depreciation in the initial years is set off by the lower

amount of the cost of repairs etc. But with the increase in the age

of the asset, no doubt, the amount of annual depreciation

allowance declines, but at the same time, repair costs etc. boost

up. Operating cost includes not only the cost of repairs etc. but

also   the   amount   of     depreciation   allowance.   Consequently,

operating profit also carries the effect of both the depreciation

allowance and repairs cost etc. Under the TNMM, the numerator is

always the amount of operating profit.          When the amount of

operating profit embraces the effect of depreciation allowance and

also repairs cost etc., both of which ordinarily run in the opposite

directions, there is no reason to discard an otherwise comparable

case simply on the ground of higher or lower percentage of amount

of depreciation allowance. As the higher amount of depreciation is

usually coupled with the lower repair cost etc., and vice versa,

there can be no justification in applying the filter of rejecting the

companies with depreciation higher or lower than a particular

percentage of total costs.


36.     Be that as it may, it is noticed that the TPO ventured to

apply this filter and by applying the same, excluded some of the

                                   36
                                                   ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                            CO No.77/Del/2010

companies which were not suitable to him. However, he forgot to

exclude these thirteen companies, which were probably favoring

the assessee's case. As this filter has been applied and acted upon

by the TPO partially, we are unable to order at this stage that this

filter be not applied because the companies favoring the assessee

on this filter must have already been excluded by the TPO, which

now cannot be brought back. Since these thirteen companies are

liable to be excluded on the basis of the filter applied by the TPO,

we have no option but to countenance the view taken by the ld.

CIT(A) in excluding these thirteen companies from the list of

comparables on the strength of the same filter.


37.   The second set of the companies excluded by the ld. CIT(A)

comprises of HCL Technologies Ltd., and Mastek Ltd.                 These

companies were excluded on the basis of the filter of rejection of

companies having related party transaction over 25%. Since RPTs

of these two companies stood at 36.89% and 47.45%, respectively,

the ld. CIT(A) directed their exclusion. The ld. DR failed to point

out with any cogent material that the related party transactions of

these two companies were less than 25%. In earlier part of this

order, we have held that the companies having related party

transactions   of   more   than   25%   cannot    be   considered        as

                                  37
                                                 ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                          CO No.77/Del/2010

comparable as these fail the test of uncontrolled transactions.

Following the same decision, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was

justified in excluding these two companies, whose percentage of

RPTs stood at 36.89% and 47.45%. As such, we uphold the view

taken by the ld. CIT(A) on the exclusion of these two companies.


38.      The last set of companies excluded by the ld. CIT(A) on

turnover filter includes seventeen names.    The TPO applied the

filter rejecting companies having sales less than `5 crore without

any upper cap. The assessee argued before the ld. CIT(A) that its

turnover under this segment amounted to `9.72 crore and, as

such, there was no justification in either excluding the companies

with sales less than `5 crore or including the companies with

turnover of more than `50 crore.      After obtaining the remand

report from the TPO, the ld. CIT(A) held that these seventeen

companies with sales of more than `50 crore be excluded from the

list of comparables.


39.     After considering the rival submissions and perusing the

relevant material on record, we find that the assessee's turnover

under this segment is to the tune of `9.72 crore. The TPO excluded

the companies with the turnover of less than `5 crore without

applying any upper limit of the turnover. The preliminary question

                                38
                                                         ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                                  CO No.77/Del/2010

which looms large before us is whether the application of this filter

is correct?     In this regard, it is relevant to note that the

computation of arm's length price under the Indian transfer pricing

provisions is embodied in section 92C of the Act. Sub-section (1) of

this section provides that the arm's length price in relation to an

international transaction shall be determined by any of the given

methods, being the most appropriate method, having regard to

certain   factors.   Proviso   to   sub-section   (2),     which      assumes

significance for the present purpose,       states that : `where more

than one price is determined by the most appropriate method, the

arm's length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of

such prices`.        In contrast, some countries have adopted the

interquartile range, which is also called the midspread or middle

fifty, instead of arithmetic mean of all, as used in India.               When

arithmetic mean is taken of the all the otherwise comparables

companies, it tends to iron out the differences due to higher or

lower size of a company or vacillating profitability rates.                      A

company otherwise found to be functionally comparable cannot be

excluded either on the ground of higher or lower profit rate or

higher or lower turnover. There is no mention in the language of

the provisions for the exclusion of potential comparable companies

simply on account of high or low turnover or profit rate. The Special
                                    39
                                                    ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                             CO No.77/Del/2010

bench of the tribunal in Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. VS.

ACIT (2014) 147 ITD 83 (Mum)(SB) has also held that potential

comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that their

profit is abnormally higher. There can be no justifiable reason to

exclude such high or low profit companies unless it is shown that

such high or low profit was due to abnormal factors. Same logic

applies to the high or low turnover companies also. The mere fact

that a company has a high or low turnover can be no reason to

justify its exclusion if it is otherwise functionally comparable.       The

exclusion of companies on such a rationale runs contrary to the

express provisions of the Act.


40.     At this stage, we consider it our duty to go through the

judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT VS. Agnity

India Technologies (P.) Ltd. (2013) 219 Taxman 26 (Del).            In that

case, the assessee was a captive unit providing software services

to its associated enterprises. The Hon'ble High Court directed the

exclusion of Infosys Ltd. from the list of comparables, which list

otherwise included several companies with huge turnover. The

exclusion was ordered on account of the giantness of this

company, which was, in turn, determined by seeing the cumulative

effect of several factors, including risk profile, nature of services,

                                  40
                                                  ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                           CO No.77/Del/2010

turnover, ownership of branded/proprietary products,         onsite vs.

offshore services, expenditure on advertisement and R&D etc. The

higher turnover was only one of the criterion and not the sole

criteria for the exclusion of this company.   In view of the above

discussion, we hold in principle that no potentially comparable

company can be expelled from the list of comparables simply for

the reason of high or low turnover.


41.   Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that the

assessee's turnover under this segment amounted to less than `10

crore. The TPO has applied the turnover filter by setting a lower

limit of turnover at `5 crore without setting any upper ceiling of

turnover.   We fail to comprehend any legally sustainable reason

for applying the filter setting a lower limit of turnover at around

half of the assessee's turnover and leaving the upper limit

uncapped.    It is trite that law does not permit a person to both

approbate and reprobate. This proposition has sanction of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir (1992) 4

SCC 683.    Under this rule, a person cannot be permitted to blow

hot and cold in the same breath. As the TPO has himself applied

the lower limit at half of the assessee's turnover, there is

justification in applying some upper limit as well. Taking a holistic

                                 41
                                                   ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                            CO No.77/Del/2010

view of the matter, we approve the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in

the present peculiar facts and circumstances by fixing the upper

limit of turnover filter at `50 crore. The situation would have been

different if the TPO had either set no or a nominal lower limit of the

turnover filter, leaving the upper limit open. In that situation, there

would have been no reason to set any upper turnover filter as well.

Ergo, we countenance the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) in the

present unusual circumstances.


42.    When the above three sets of companies are held to be

rightly excluded, the price charged by the assessee from its

associated enterprises in this segment of international transactions

comes within (+)/(-) 5% range as per proviso to section 92C(2) of

the Act, warranting no addition on account of transfer pricing

adjustment. We, therefore, uphold the deletion of the addition of

`85.20 lac.


43. The cross objection filed by the assessee is simply in support of

the impugned order granting relief to the assessee on the grounds

which are subject matter of the Revenue's appeal. In view of our

decision on the appeal filed by the Department, the Cross objection

of the assessee has become infructuous.



                                  42
                                                    ITA Nos.242 & 178/Del/2010
                                                             CO No.77/Del/2010

44.        In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee

are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross objection

of the assessee is dismissed.


          The order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2014.

              Sd/-                                     Sd/-


    [GEORGE GEORGE K.]                            [R.S. SYAL]
      JUDICIAL MEMBER                         ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated, 31st October, 2014.
dk


Copy forwarded to:
     1.   Appellant
     2.   Respondent
     3.   CIT
     4.   CIT (A)
     5.   DR, ITAT
                                                AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.*
*




                                    43

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Reengineering Software Re-engineering Software Reverse Engineering Software Reverse Development Software Change Modulation Software Conversion Software Re-creation Software Re-development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions