(BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, VP AND SHRI A. MOHAN … · against the orders of the AOs u/s 143(3)...
Transcript of (BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, VP AND SHRI A. MOHAN … · against the orders of the AOs u/s 143(3)...
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
1
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH – AHMEDABAD
(BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, VP AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM)
I.T.A. Nos. 3096/Ahd/2010 and 3308/Ahd/2011 A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Dist. Panchmahal, Halol 389 350 P. A. No. AAACG 8371 P
vs
The D. C. I. T. / A. C. I. T., Panchmahal Circle,
Godhara
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by Shri S. N. Soparkar, AR Respondent by Shri S. C. Tiwari, TPO and
Shri D. P. Gupta, CIT - DR
Date of hearing: 27-06-2013
Date of pronouncement: 02-08-2013
O R D E R
PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY:
1. These two appeals of the assessee company are directed
against the orders of the AOs u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated
20.9.2010 and 28.10.2011 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08
respectively. The above orders of the AOs were based on the directions of
the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] dated 27.8.2010 and 27.9.2011 for the
AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively.
I. ITA NO.3096/A/10 – AY 2006-07:
2. For this assessment year, the assessee company [‘the
assessee’ in short] had, in fact, raised six grounds in an elaborate and
illustrative manner. However, the assessee has, subsequently, come up
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
2
2
with its concise grounds along with an additional ground vide its letter
dated 5.9.2012, according to which, ground No.1 being general in nature;
it does not survive for adjudication. The remaining grounds are
reformulated as under:
“That the AO/TPO erred: (2) in disallowing Rs.3,14,830/- being proportionate lease charges in respect of lease- hold land; (3) in disallowing Rs.4,16,978/- being expenditure incurred on gifts; (4) in disallowing Rs.2,50,68,560/- on account of provision for slow moving and obsolete inventory made by the assessee in respect of some items in accordance with the method of accounting consistently followed by it; (5) without prejudice, the AO/DRP erred in not allowing a deduction of Rs.3,67,03,644/- being provision for slow moving and obsolete inventory reversed during the year and credited to P & L account; (6) in making an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.10,60,000/- out of account of workmen and staff welfare expenses; (7, 8, 9 & 11) in making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.152,44,00,000/- [Rs.140.26 crores + Rs.12.18 crores]; - by reducing an expenditure of Rs.140,26,00,000/- on purchase of CKD Kits;
- by making an addition of Rs.12,18,00,000/- in respect of its Tech. Centre operations;
Additional ground: - by making the transfer pricing addition to the entire value of transactions entered
Into by the assessee and had not made adjustments only to the value of International transactions entered into by the assessee (i.e., proportionate adjustments) and ignoring established jurisprudence in this regard; &
(10) by not providing the benefit of 5 per cent range as provided by the proviso to s. 92C (2) of the Act.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
3
3
II. ITA NO.3308/A/10 – AY 2007-08:
2.1. Likewise, for the AY 2007-08 also, the assessee has raised
fifteen grounds in an exhaustive manner and, subsequently, vide its letter
dated 12.9.2012 substituted the same with thirteen concise grounds.
2.2. Ground Nos.1 & 6 being general and no specific issues are
involved; they do not survive for adjudication. The remaining concise
grounds are reformulated as under:
“That the AO/TPO erred:
(2) in disallowing Rs.2,91,258/- being proportionate lease charges in respect of lease hold-land; (3) in disallowing Rs.5,15,876/- being expenditure incurred on gifts;
(4 & 5) in disallowing Rs.2,44,28,818/- on account of provision for slow moving and obsolete inventory made by the assessee in respect of some items in accordance with the method of accounting consistently followed by it;
- in disallowing the said amount which was the cost of inventory for which provision had been made;
(7, 8, 9 & 10) In making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.227,21,60,504/- [Rs.206 crores + 16.32 crores];
- by reducing the expenditure of Rs.206 crores on purchase of CKD Kits by the
assessee from its AEs;
- by making an addition of Rs.16,32,00,000/- with respect to its Tech. Centre operations;
(11) by making an addition of Rs.4,89,60,504/- to the taxable income with respect to royalty transaction;
(12) by not providing relief on account of working capital adjustment to reflect the differing levels of trade receivables, trade payables and inventories (working capital adjustments) between the assessee and the potential comparables; &
(13) by not providing the assessee the benefit of 5 per cent range as provided by the proviso to s. 92 C(2) of the Act.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
4
4
3. As the facts of the issues involved in these appeals being
almost similar and identical, for the sake of convenience and clarity, they
were heard, considered together and disposed of in this consolidated
order.
4. For record, we would like to point out that the final arguments of
the cases were concluded by the rival parties on 15.3.2013. Subsequently,
on 15.5.2013, the Revenue came up with the copies of findings of the
Hon’ble Mumbai Benches in the cases of (i) M/s. Onward Technologies
Limited in ITA NO.7985/Mum/2010 and (ii) M/s. Aurionpro Solutions
Limited in ITA NO.7872/Mum/2001 with a plea that since the issue of
determining of the ‘tested party’ under dispute is covered by the above
findings and in favour of the Revenue, the same requires to be considered
while deciding the present appeals. In order to facilitate the assessee to
have its comments, if any, on the case laws on which the Revenue has
placed its reliance (supra), the cases were scheduled for final hearing on
7.6.2013 and finally the case was re-heard on 27.06.2013.
5. Reverting back to the main issue, during the course of hearing,
the assessee vide its application dated 2.11.2012 sought the permission of
this Bench to produce additional evidence on the premise that during the
hearings before the TPO & DRP, un-audited analysis of the product line
profitability schedules prepared by the assessee including the figures of
yearly sales and operating profit were submitted. One of the objections
recorded by the TPO and the DRP were that the said accounts were un-
audited. In view of the above, the assessee places the following additional
evidence on record:
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
5
5
“Audited analysis of PLP by General Motors India (GMI) with the transfer pricing calculation of General Motor Daewoo Auto & Technology [GMDAT] for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007.”
5.1. After hearing the rival parties and also having considered the
reasoning of the assessee in non-furnishing of the audited accounts before
the authorities below earlier, the additional evidence now sought to be
furnished was directed to be placed on record.
6. We shall now proceed to adjudicate the issues chronologically
as under:
Briefly stated, the issues involved are that –
A.Y. 2006-07:
7. The assessee is engaged in manufacture and trading of
automobiles and its parts. The assessee had, for the assessment year
2006-07 furnished its return of income admitting ‘Nil’ income. The AO had
made a reference u/s 92CA (1) of the Act to the TPO for computation of
ALP in relation to the international transaction as detailed in the audit report
in Form No.3CEB. The TPO had passed an order u/s 92CA (3) of the Act,
proposing an adjustment of Rs.152.44 crores thereby enhancing the
income of the assessee by the said sum. In the TP proceedings, the
assessee had made various submissions with regard to reduction in the
expenditure on purchase of CKD Kits and services, change of tested party,
partial/total disallowance of extraordinary expenses on account of
adjustments made to compensate for lower capacity utilization, reduction of
cost on account of lower level of indigenization, reduction in the quantum
of additional marketing, advertisement, selection of companies which
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
6
6
related to party transactions etc. In respect of Tech. Centre operations
also, various submissions were made with respect to selection of
comparable companies with different business profits, use of single year
data for the purpose of comparison, claim of benefit of 5% range and other
objections. The TPO dealt with each issue and other objections in his
order and made an adjustment of Rs.33.49 crores in purchase of CKD kits
and services and Rs.19.66 crores in Tech. Centre operations.
7.1. After due consideration of the assessee’s submissions and for
the reasons recorded therein, the DRP directed the AO to enhance the
income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO had, in his order u/s 143(3)
r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 20.9.2010 worked out the gross total income
of the assessee at Rs.191.69 crores which consisted of, among others, the
following additions:
(i) Adjustment on account of ALP in intl. transactions [including Rs.140.26 crores being expenditure on purchase of CKD kits and Rs.12.18 Crores under Tech Centre Operations] Rs.152,44,00,000 (ii) Amortization of lease hold-land Rs. 3,14,830 (iii) Out of gift exp. Rs. 4,16,978 (iv) Out of workmen & staff welfare exp. Rs. 10,60,000 (v) Out of cost of wastage & Obsolete material etc., Rs. 2,50,68,560
A.Y. 2007-08:
7.2. Likewise, for this assessment year too, the AO had, u/s 143 (3)
r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 28.10.2011, made the following additions, as
per the directions of the DRP and for the detailed reasons recorded in the
assessment order, namely:
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
7
7
(i) Adjustment on account of ALP in intl. transactions [including Rs.206 + 4.9 + 16.32 crores] being expenditure on purchase of CKD kits, royalty and Tech Centre operations Rs.227,21,60,504 (ii)Amortization of lease hold-land Rs. 2,91,258 (iii) Out of gift exp. Rs. 5,15,876 (iv) Out of cost of wastage & Obsolete materials Rs. 2,44,28,818
7.3. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up before us with the
present appeals.
8. Though the assessee has, in its grounds of appeals for both the
AYs, raised various issues, the main and foremost issue [Ground Nos.7,
8, 9 & 11 for the AY 2006-07 and Gr. Nos. 7, 8, 9 & 10 for the AY 2007-08]
focused was that the case of the assessee was more comparable to
GMDAT and not with Mahindra & Mahindra (M & M) as attributed by the
TPO/DRP.
8.1. Therefore, the main issue raised in Ground Nos. 7, 8, 9 & 11
and Gr. Nos.7, 8, 9 & 10 for the AYs. 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively
are taken up for adjudication, as under:
9. It was the contention of the assessee before the TPO/DRP that
the functions performed by GMDAT include designing and developing of
CKD kits and components, research and development from time to time,
production of the CKD Kits and components required by CKD Assemblers,
procuring CKD Kits and components from third parties, quality control and
testing as necessary in respect of manufactured and procured CKD Kits
and components, packing, storing and shipping of the CKD Kits and
components to CKD Assemblers based on the purchase orders. GMDAT
owns routine tangible assets like fixed assets, inventory and accounts
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
8
8
receivables. It has the requisite infrastructure such as land and buildings,
machinery and tools for manufacturing of kits. It also owns manufacturing
facilities such as necessary manufacturing equipment and tools.
9.1.1. A comparative chart giving functions performed by the
assessee and GMDAT was produced to make an impact that the assessee
carries the entrepreneurial role in relation to sale of GM Cars in India by
localizing cars, building dealer network and overall sales and marketing
function. Developing market is an important and difficult task to be
performed in business. The product failure risk after assembling of a
vehicle and obsolescence risk due to changing technology and dynamic
market conditions are also borne by the assessee. The assessee is
responsible for developing local marketing intangibles for competing in the
Indian market. The functions and risks of the assessee are more complex
in nature.
9.1.2. Under TNMM, various suitable adjustments were made to
mitigate the material differences on account of various extra-ordinary
factors experienced by the assessee vis-à-vis comparable companies.
Attention was drawn to the decision in the case of Mentor Graphics (Noida)
Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (2007) 109 ITD 101 (Del).
9.1.3. Description of various produces manufactured by comparable
companies proposed by the TPO/assessee along with companies selected
as comparables in the transfer pricing documents was as under:
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
9
9
Name of the company
Selected by the assessee
Selected by the TPO
Product profile
Force Motors Limited
√
x
On-road automobiles having 4 or more wheels such as light, medium and heavy commercial vehicles, jeep type vehicles and passer cars, agricultural tractor and diesel engines for other purposes
Hindustan Motors Ltd
√
x
Passenger cars in the mid size premium segment, sports utility vehicle, utility vehicles, multi-purpose vehicles and total passenger vehicles [Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Pajero, Lancer Cedia, Ambassador]
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited
√
√
Four or more wheels such as light, medium and heavy commercial vehicles, jeep type vehicles and passenger cars (Scorpio, Balero, Cargo three wheeler – Champion Alfa)
9.1.4. It was, further, submitted that as per annual report of Mahindra
and Mahindra Limited, the company is engaged in the manufacturing multi
utility vehicle [MUV], LCV and three wheeler segments and that the
functions performed by Force Motors Limited are broadly similar to the
functions performed by M & M and, hence, Force Motors Limited should be
considered as comparable. It was pointed out that during the year, Force
Motor Limited utilized 57.89% capacity with respect to on-road automobiles
having 4 or more wheels, imported certain technology for manufacture of
cars and spent considerable sum on R & D.
9.1.5. Hindustan Motors Limited is the well known brand in the Indian
market and during the period under consideration, Hindustan Motors Ltd
has imported certain technology for manufacture of cars, has reported
export earnings, launched new products and made a profit of Rs.12.78
crores before tax. Merely on account of losses, it cannot be rejected.
9.1.6. It was argued before the authorities below that if stringent
comparability analysis as adopted by the TPO were to be adopted, M & M
should also be put to such stringent comparability criterion. M&M is also
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
10
10
involved in the manufacture of multi utility vehicles, light commercial
vehicles as well as three wheelers apart from passenger cars. If Force
Motor Limited is to be rejected on the basis of different product profile,
M&M should also be rejected on the same basis.
A comparative chart is as under:
Company Name (Mar-07) 12 months % profit
Selected by Turnover (Mar 07) 12 months (Rs. In crores)
Force Motors Limited -5.29 Assessee 1138.96
Hindustan Motor Limited 4.92 Assessee 625.18
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd
9.70 Assessee/TPO 6490.38
Arithmetic Mean (2 comparables – excluding Hindustan)
2.20
Arithmetic Mean (3 comparables
3.11
GMI Margin (before adjustment)
-0.62 1844.10
GMI Margin (after adjustment considering 2 comparables)
4.16
GMI Margin (after adjustment considering 3 comparables)
2.88
9.1.7. It was, further, argued by the assessee that based on the prior
year’s approach, the TPO selected only one company as comparable and
no fresh analysis was undertaken for the same comparables. Stringent
comparability filters were applied to reject two companies selected by the
assessee. TPO was not consistent while applying filters and selecting the
final comparable companies. TPO had finally proposed one company
(M&M as a comparable with a profit margin of 9.7 percent on revenue).
9.1.8. It was submitted that the assessee carried out adjustments to
the operation margin on account of idle capacity adjustment; indigenization
adjustment and excessive marketing spend. The normalized profitability
for assessee was worked out to be 5.9 per cent which was rejected by the
TPO stating that adjustment should be made if the difference exists in
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
11
11
respect of details of the comparables vis-à-vis the assessee. It was also
contended by the assessee that adjustment should be applied in relation to
the cost price pertaining to the imported goods. Reliance was placed on
the decision in the case of IL Jin Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. [438/Del/2008].
9.2. After taking into consideration of the submission of the
assessee, the DRP had recorded its findings [for the AY 2007-08 under
dispute] as under:
“(On page 19) 11………………………..The tested party has to be participant in the
controlled transaction whose operating profit attributable to the controlled
transactions can be verified using the most reliable data and requiring the fewest and
most reliable adjustment and for which reliable data regarding uncontrolled
comparables can be located. Consequently, in most cases the tested party will be the
least complex of the controlled tax payers and will not own valuable intangible
property or unique assets that distinguish it from potential uncontrolled comparables.
As GMDAT is not only a complex entity owing valuable intangibles, the data for
comparability of GMDAT or the comparables is also not available.
It was stated that in case Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd is taken as a comparable then
Force Motors Ltd., being functionally similar, should also be taken as a comparable
with General Motors as its sales growth is almost NIL whereas General Motors is
showing growth well above the industry standard in the last few years. For F Y 2007,
2008 and 2009, Force Motors is showing net losses. The company is not financially
stable; it is not treated as comparable. Force Motors is never considered as a part of
industry whereas Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd is manufacturing motor vehicles besides
tractors and is always considered as part of the motor industry.
From the companies selected by the TPO and the assessee, Mahindra & Mahindra
Ltd is a company selected by both. Also with respect to product range being similar
brand command, scale of operation/market share, growth rate in last past several
years in India, export, non-related party transactions being less than 25%, new
products/models launched and production scale being plant capacity utilization above
50% Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd is almost similar to the assessee.
The assessee had argued that Force Motors were planning to launch new SUV and
that Force Motors were one of the major players in the automobile industry. About
Mahindra & Mahindra, it was contended that the total turnover of the comp any was
more than Rs.20,323 crores which is much higher than the assessee company.
However, as per the information available, Force motors are planning to launch SUV
in the year 2011 which has no relevance with the financial data for assessment year
2007-08. The turnover of Mahindra & Mahindra in the jeeps’ segment is
approximately Rs.6500 crores which is comparable with that of the assessee.
In view of the facts narrated above, the results of assessee have to be compared with
Mahindra & Mahindra only…………………..”
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
12
12
10. Aggrieved by the stand of the TPO/DRP in the issue of ‘tested
party’, among others, the assessee has come up before us.
10.1. During the course of hearing, the lengthy and elaborate
submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel are summarized as
under:
10.1.1. In rebutting the learned DR’s accusation that the assessee had
not produced the entire functional analysis of the assessee - General
Motors India Private Limited – the learned Counsel drew our attention to
the Transfer Pricing report [pages 13 to 19] wherein a detailed record of
functions performed by the assessee and General Motors Daewoo & Auto
Technology Limited [GMDAT] were recorded. It was, further, submitted
that the learned DR in his submission had confined only a part of the
functions performed by the assessee whereas for GMDAT, he had
reproduced the entire list of functions performed [courtesy: Annexure
Exhibit II of DR’s submission] thereby, according to the learned Sr.
counsel, a systematic attempt was made to underplay the functions
actually performed by the assessee vis-à-vis GMDAT.
10.1.2. The functions performed by the assessee and GMDAT with
respect to purchase of CKD kits and components are provided as under:
10.1.3. GMDAT is the successor to Daewoo Motor Company which
was originally established in 1965 as Shinjin Motors and in 1972; Shinjin
Motors entered into a joint venture with GM and changed its name to
General Motors Korea and later on in 1976 to Saehan Motor. In 1982,
when the Daewoo Group gained control over the company, the name was
changed to Daewoo Motor Company. It was, further, submitted that the
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
13
13
Daewoo group of companies which included many businesses of which
Daewoo Motor Company was one, went bankrupt in Asian financial crisis
and in 2002, the trade and assets of Daewoo Motor Company were
purchased by General Motors. GMDAT at that time was owned 55.4 per
cent by third parties and 44.6 per cent by GM.
10.1.4. The company develops, manufactures and markets passenger
vehicles and associated replacement parts and accessories. It owns and
operates four manufacturing facilities, a R & D Centre and a design centre
in Korea. The shareholding pattern of the company for the FY 2006-07
was as under:
Name of shareholder Holding (%) 1. General Motors Investment Pty Ltd, Australia 48.19 2. Suzuki Motor corporation, Japan 11.24 3. Korean Development Bank. Korea 27.97 4. Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation, China 09.89 5. General Motors Asia Pacific Holdings LLC, Australia 02.71
10.1.5. With regard to the market presence and product profile for
GMDAT, it was submitted that –
(i) GMDAT provides GM with immediate access to the Korean market
and a range of cost-competitive products with global appeal and world-
class product engineering and die manufacturing capabilities. GMDAT has
its headquarters in Bupyoeng-ku, Incheon. It is also responsible for
production and sales at home and abroad;
(ii) That it sells vehicles in more than 150 markets worldwide and the
sales in the domestic market are made through Daewoo Motor Sales
corporation whereas in the overseas market, it is through the Associated
enterprises (AE);
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
14
14
(iii) That GMDAT’s vehicles are sold under GM brands in most markets
and this allows GMDAT to capitalize on brands that GM has already
established without the need for GMDAT to build up its own branch. The
company focuses on smaller sized vehicles to complement GM’s product
offerings which are focused on the larger sized passenger cars, SUVs and
pick-up trucks. The small size cars have been one of GMDAT’s most
popular products globally;
(iv) That the company produces and sells finished vehicles [internally
referred to as complete built-up units [CUBS] to its associated enterprises
for distribution in the local markets. The company also produces and sells
finished vehicle kits [internally referred as CKD Kits] to its associated
enterprises who in turn assemble the CKD Kits to produce finished
vehicles;
(v) That in addition to CKD Kits, GMDAT also produces and purchases
parts and accessories for use in its vehicles. The company sells parts and
accessories to its associated enterprises for resale in local markets;
(vi) That CKD Kits may include essentially a complete kit to build an
automobile i.e., engine, transmission, body panels etc., or may include only
the key components where the significant portion of the automobile parts
are indigenized;
(vii) That at a start of each financial year, a price-walk is performed and a
pricing approach is then established based on budgeted costs and
revenues of the parties involved. Pricing of CKD Kits follow cost plus mark-
up based approaches internally referred to as ‘fully costed prices’;
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
15
15
(viii) That under this method, the transfer prices of CKD Kits consist of the
following components:
(a) cost of supplying in-house parts plus a 8 percent markup;
(b) cost of purchasing parts from outside vendors plus a 4 percent mark-
up;
(c) cost of consolidating and packaging into CKD Kits plus 5 percent mark-up; &
(d) market adjusted prices;
(ix) That in cases where the fully costed pricing cannot be adopted, then
the market adjusted prices were used. This was a market based approach
since market conditions were also considered for determining the transfer
prices. In such a scenario, GMDAT and CKD Assemblers negotiate the
final transfer price having regard to the market conditions and other macro
economic factors in the CKD Assembler’s jurisdiction;
(x) As regards to the transactions with the assessee, given the fact India
is unique in terms of market competition and demand variables and the fact
that the assessee was re-establishing itself with a new brand, flexibility in
the transfer prices were required. Having regard to this, a market adjusted
price was considered to be more suitable;
(xi) That GMDAT was performing the following functions, namely:
(a) designing and developing CKD kits and components from time to time;
(b) undertaking research and development from time to time; (c) production of the CKD Kits and components that are required by
CKD assemblers;
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
16
16
(d) procuring CKD Kits and components from third parties; (e) quality control and testing as necessary in respect of
manufactured and procured CKD Kits and components; & (f) packing, storing and shipping the CKD Kits and components to
CKD Assemblers based on purchase orders; (xii) That the functions performed by GMI (the assessee) are -
(a) that the assessee purchases CKD Kits and components from
GMDAT for assembling cars; and that these kits are in addition to
locally purchased components which are also used in the cars
manufactured;
(b) that to effectively meet the after sales servicing needs of its
customers, the assessee imports spare parts and accessories
from GMDAT in addition to local procurement for their resale in
India; and that the assessee imports spare parts and accessories
as finished goods and do not undertake any further value addition
and the assessee also distributes the imported spare parts and
accessories through its dealership network;
10.1.6. With regard to the selection of GMDAT as the tested party by
the assessee, it was submitted that:
(i) GMDAT in relation to sale of CKD Kits and components to GMI acts
as a contract manufacturer undertaking limited functions. On the other
hand, the assessee carries the entrepreneurial role in relation to sale of
GM Cars in India;
a. that GMDAT carries the limited function for manufacturing of
CKD Kits and components;
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
17
17
b. the GMDAT assumes limited risks in this regard;
c. GMDAT is simpler of the two entities and, hence, considered as the tested party;
d. Adequate and reliable date is available for GMDAT and its
comparable companies; and
e. Choice of GMDAT as the tested party is in line with the OECD transfer pricing guidelines;
10.1.7. In respect of non-selection of GMI (the assessee) as the tested
party, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that -
(i) GMI acts as an entrepreneur in relation to sale of GM Cars in India
undertaking full risks is in this regard. On the other hand, GMDAT act as a
contract manufacturer undertaking limited risks and owning routine
intangibles;
(ii) GMI is entirely responsible for the sale of cars assembled by it in
India. Towards this end, GMI markets the cars through its extensive
network of dealers throughout the country;
(iii) GMI is also involved in supply chain management including
identifying the market opportunities, purchasing, designing, logistics,
production, research and development, assembling, distribution, marketing,
finance and sale of finished products;
(iv) GMI’s profitability is impacted by a number of factors including
external market conditions, market competition etc., it is difficult to accurate
adjustments to make such data comparable to that of the comparables;
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
18
18
(v) Indian transfer pricing regulations do not stipulate use of only Indian
company as the tested party;
(vi) Thus based on the above, it was concluded that GMDAT carries out
limited functions in relation to sale of CKD Kits and components whereas
GMI carries the entrepreneurial role in relation to sale of GM Cars in India;
10.1.8. Further, testing the profitability of GMI (which is subject to
various external factors) would require a number of adjustments given that
there were certain peculiar circumstances that were affecting the net
operating profit of GMI. Thus, in order to make a comparison as required
u/s 92C(1) and 92C(2) of the Act read with rule 10B(1)(e) and rule 10B(3),
certain appropriate adjustments needed to be carried out, namely:
(i) Idle capacity adjustment; (ii) Indigenization adjustment & (iii) Marketing
adjustment.
10.1.9. Hence, based on the above consideration it was appropriate to
select GMDAT as the tested party for analyzing the inter-company
transactions.
Research and development activities [R&D] undertaken by GMI and GMDAT: Denying the Revenue’s allegation that the GMDAT carries out all the
research and development activities (R&D) whereas GMI does not
undertake any R&D on its own account, it was submitted that GMI had
incurred expenditure of Rs.16.11 crores on R&D which has been reported
in the financial statement of GMI and that as per the financial statements of
GMDAT, the company does not own significant intangibles. In fact, the
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
19
19
company has negative goodwill amount to Korean Won [14,87,013] in its
books of accounts. This makes it absolutely clear that GMI’s operations
relating to manufacture and sale of cars and components are much
complex than that of GMDAT which is only engaged in manufacturing and
supply of certain components used in manufacturing the car itself. Also,
with respect to manufacture and sale of cars and components, GMI incurs
significant time and cost in conducting local research and development
activities in relation to its cars that it assembles. The need for undertaking
such research and development activities arises owing to the following
reasons:
(i) GMI constantly endeavors to indigenize the cars by replacing imported components with alternative local supplies; &
(ii) From time to time, there is a need to adopt the car’s basic technology to suit the Indian environment. The adoption could be driven by factors such as changes in the Indian automobiles regulatory environment, customer feedback etc.,
10.1.10. Disproving the learned D.R’s allegation that the assessee in its
transfer pricing documentation had selected GMDAT as the tested party
as GMDAT with respect to its transaction with GMI is engaged in
manufacturing and supplying CKD Kits and components and in other
words, GMDAT acts as an Original Equipment Manufacturer [OEM] for GMI
and, therefore, the functional profile of the comparables should also be
same as that of GMDAT etc., it was submitted that all the comparable
companies selected by the assessee were functioning as OEM of
automobile components, spares and accessories and, therefore, they were
comparable to GMDAT with respect to the international transaction relating
to manufacture and supply of CKD kits and components. Hence, based on
the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the argument put-forth by the
revenue is erroneous and without any rationale whatsoever.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
20
20
10.1.11. With regard to the Revenue’s concern over the
geographical variances between the comparable companies selected
which were operating out of Asia Pacific region and the tested party which
is operating out of South Korea region, the assessee contended that it had
submitted a set of 27 comparable companies operating out of South Korea
region, only which were engaged in manufacturing and supplying of
automobile components, spares and accessories. It was made clear by the
assessee that while furnishing the above, it did not propose any additional
comparable which was not filed during the assessment proceedings, but,
only presented something which was already available with the TPO.
10.1.12. With regard to the Revenue’s allegation that the assessee
had not furnished any financial information of comparable companies, the
learned Sr. Counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the effect that the
financial details including operating margin of comparable companies along
the back-up computations had been furnished to the TPO in the transfer
pricing documentation [Courtesy: Pages 113 – 210 of Transfer Pricing
Study].
10.1.13. In respect of the Revenue’s (TPO’s) averment that
GMDAT should not be selected as the tested party as the comparable
companies selected by the assessee does not come under his jurisdiction
and, thus, he can neither call for any additional information nor scrutinize
their books of accounts etc., it was contended on behalf of the assessee
that on the one hand the DRP/TPO had rejected the assessee’s approach
of selecting GMDAT as the tested party by arguing that there was no
reliable data available for both GMDAT and comparables and, therefore,
GMDAT cannot be taken as the tested party, however, the TPO himself
had taken GMDAT as the tested party while making adjustment to
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
21
21
transaction relating to payment of royalty by the assessee to GMDAT. It
was argued that the TPO had rejected internal CUP used by the assessee,
instead, adopted external CUP taking GMDAT as the tested party and
relying on ADGAR online data-base. This approach of the Revenue,
according to the learned Sr. Counsel, as good as to enhance the
adjustment made to the assessee.
10.1.14. It was, further, submitted that the TPO was not framing an
assessment on the comparable companies selected by the assessee,
instead, was assessing as to whether the assessee had in any way over
paid for purchase of CKD Kits and components to its AE, GMDAT. The
financial statement of comparable companies was audited by independent
auditors and, hence, it should be appropriate to place reliance on the
same. It was, further, argued that the TPO, while applying TNMM was
expected to compute the profit level indicator/operating margins from the
financial information submitted for the comparable companies and till the
time those financial statements enable the TPO to reliably compute the
profit level indicator and there should not be any concern whatsoever.
10.1.15. Rejecting the Revenue’s allegation that sufficient financial
data was not available for the tested party, it was submitted that the
segmental financial data for benchmarking a part of GMDAT’s business
which relates to manufacturing and sale of CKDs to the assessee was
furnished to the TPO and on his request, the financial statement of GMDAT
(at company level) was also furnished.
10.1.16. With regard to the averment of the TPO as well as the DR
during the course of hearing proceedings that the segmental financial
statement of GMDAT was not reliable, the learned Sr. Counsel reiterated
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
22
22
that the segmental data relied upon for benchmarking international
transactions relating to import of ACKD Kits and components was
completely reliable and was based on sound allocation keys. In this
regard, it was submitted that a review was done for GMDAT’s segmental
profitability in relation to export of CKD Kits and components to the
assessee and the same has been found reasonably accurate. [Source:
Report of factual findings of Deloitte Anjin LLC, Korea - on page 40 PB].
10.1.17. It was urged that GMDAT’s segmental profitability in
relation to export of CKD Kits and components to the assessee was
completely reliable and, thus, it was unjustified on the part of the Revenue
to reject GMDAT as the tested party for analyzing the inter-company
transactions.
10.1.8. Preference of transaction by transaction approach over aggregation
approach:
The assessee based on the detailed functional analysis, selected GMDAT
as the tested party in its transfer pricing documentation, for the following
reasons:
(i) The above approach selected by the assessee is also more relevant as by selecting GMDAT as the tested party, we would be benchmarking only the international transaction of manufacturing of CKD Kits and components by GMDAT with independent companies involved in similar business;
(ii) On the other hand, if one chooses to select GMI as the tested party, the whole business of GMI will need to be tested against the independent comparable companies. Therefore, apart from the relevant international transaction i.e., purchase of components and spares, other third party costs including manufacturing expenses, employee remuneration, selling and general get tested;
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
23
23
(iii) That only a part of the total expenses i.e., 17.55 per cent pertains to international transaction with AEs and out of this, only 15 per cent pertains to import of CKD and components. Thus, while selecting GMI as the tested party, the balance 82 per cent which pertains to third party cost will need to be benchmarked the risk of transfer pricing adjustment (as already done by the TPO in this case);
(iv) Therefore, while selecting GMI as the tested party, whole business
of GMI will get aggregated and will be benchmarked against independent comparable companies.
10.1.9. This view of the assessee of benchmarking only the
relevant international transaction while adopting transaction-by-transaction
approach also gets support from Indian TP regulations, OECD guidelines
and Indian judicial decisions.
10.1.10. Placing emphasis on s. 92(1) of the Act, relevant I.T.
Rules and also Para 3.9 of O.E.C.D. Guidelines, the learned Sr. Counsel
had placed reliance on the following case laws:
(i) M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v. Addl CIT (299 ITR 175);
(ii) Development Consultants Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (115 TTJ 577);
(iii) Star India (P) Ltd v. ACIT [ITA NO.3585/M/2006];
(iv) Ankit Diamonds v. DCIT [8 ITR (Trib) 487];
(v) Technimount ICB Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT [ITA No.7098/Mum/2010];
(vi) Destination of the World (Sub-continent) Pvt. Ltd [ITA No.534 (Delhi Trib) 2010 AY 06-07];
(vii) Tej Diam [(2010 37 SOT 341 (Mum)]; & (viii) Twinkle Diamond [ITA No.5033/Mum/07]
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
24
24
10.1.11. In conclusion, it was emphasized that in view of the
specific requirements of Indian TP regulations, OECD Guidelines and
existing judicial precedents on the issue, transaction-by-transaction
approach should be preferred over aggregation approach. Therefore,
based on the above considerations, it is reasonable to conclude that
GMDAT should be selected as the tested party for analyzing the inter-
company transactions.
10.1.12. To drive home his points, the learned Sr. Counsel sought
to place reliance on the following case laws:
(i) Mastek Limited v. Addl. CIT in ITA No.3120/Ahd/2010 dated 29.2.2012;
(ii) AIA Engg. Ltd v. Addl. CIT – 2012 50 SOT 134;
(iii) Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (2008) 23 SOT 455 10.2. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that no specific
reference is in the Act to determine who should be the tested party.
However, rule 10B of I.T. Rules specifies the criteria to be followed
between the tested party and comparables. A tested party should be as
party for which these criteria can be reasonably determined and followed.
Further, it was argued that the reliability of data is one of the most
important factors governing selection of tested party.
10.2.1. Guidance on tested party selection comes from OECD.
Extensively quoting the guidelines, the learned D R submitted that for
selection of the tested party, the following criteria are to be kept in view,
namely:
(a) Tested party to be one with less complex functional analysis;
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
25
25
(b) Reliability of data of the party selected as tested party; & (c) Selection of the party requiring minimum adjustments.
10.2.2. It was, further, submitted that the functional description of
GMDAT as detailed in the transfer pricing documentation, it is seen that
GMDAT is an entrepreneur engaged in manufacturing of Completely
Knocked Down [CKD] Kits in its plants across many countries,
manufacturing of cars and also involved in R & D. The company has
complex business activities and a high level of intangible assets.
Compared to the activities of GMDAT, it was argued that the assessee
company is a manufacturer of automobiles but has no R & D activity and
no technological intangibles. Its produce line is similar to other
manufacturers in the country and there is no geographical adjustment
required.
10.2.3. Admittedly, it was argued by the learned DR, all the
intangibles are owned by GMDAT which has been specifically mentioned in
TP Documentation at para 3.1. GMDAT is the technology owner who is
supplying CKDs and intangibles (for which royalty is also paid) and on
whose specifications, the manufacturing activity is being carried out by the
assessee. Even in development of local content, the approval of the
foreign party is a must before the changes are incorporated. The case of
the assessee fails on the first count as GM DAT is more complex of the two
parties and would require large number of adjustments in case of being
selected as comparable. It was, further, submitted that the mechanism of
culling out the data pertaining to the transaction under reference from the
financial statement of AE has not been produced before the TPO. The
assessee has not been able to submit any reliable segmental data or
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
26
26
reliable basis on which the global accounts have been segregated and the
accounts with respect to Indian transactions have been prepared. Hence,
it was claimed, the data utilized by the assessee in respect of the tested
party is unreliable and unsubstantiated. If the assessee is to choose its
tested party, it has to make available correct, verifiable and validated data
in respect of such tested party. From the functional analysis of the
assessee as well as GMDAT, it is clearly brought out that GMDAT is a far
more complex entity catering to a number of subsidiaries, having plants at
multiple locations, intangibles on which royalty is being paid even by the
Indian company. The annual accounts filed by the assessee reveal the
complex nature of operation of the AE as against the simple manufacturing
function of the Indian party without owning any distinct intangibles. With
operations across multiple geographies and substantial related party
transactions, GMDAT not only fails the test of minimum adjustments but is
clear that it is not possible to estimate the degree of adjustment needed to
ensure comparability of GMDAT with the comparables selected. Sufficient
data relating to comparables if this company is selected as tested party is
also not available. Thus, it was submitted that GMDAT is more complex of
the two parties and would require large number of adjustments in case of it
being selected as comparable.
10.2.4. It was, further, argued that the TP study conducted by the
assessee contains brief description of the companies selected. All of them
are functionally different from the tested party selected by the assessee.
The tested party is engaged in manufacturing and sale of automobiles and
CKDs. The second comparable is engaged in iron, gravity and aluminum
castings, the third is engaged in production of body parts like floors, center
pillars, hoods and so on. Perusal of the companies and the description
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
27
27
mentioned by the assessee is sufficient to come to conclusion that these
companies cannot be compared with tested party of the assessee. No
details relating to geographical sale or sourcing is available. It was
submitted that companies like Toyota Corporation with a turnover of
Rs.36,000 crores and Sumitomo Electric Industries Limited with turnover of
Rs.42,000 crores have been included in the study. No reliable data is
available on any of the companies which have multifarious operations
around the globe. Rule 10B (2) sets out the broad parameters of
comparability which decide the kind of comparables can be selected. FAR,
Risk and responsibilities, laws of different Governments, geographical loan
and size of market etc., are the key issues in selection of comparables, if
the comparables happen to be spread across multiple geographies. It was
submitted that there is huge functional and geographical variation in
selection of comparables. The market for the products of these
comparables is not known. The local laws in different countries in which
these entities operate is now known. It is also not known whether
segmental data for specific area of assessee’s function is available or not.
No details whatsoever are available relating to financial aspect of these
companies. The assessee has not attempted computation for functional or
geographical differences in the study. It is known fact that the Japanese,
Chinese, Malaysian, Indian markets or financial background is totally
different and cannot constitute a single set of data for comparison with a
Korean company without any adjustment in margins. It is clear that
sufficient financial data is not available either in the case of the tested party
or in the case of selected comparables.
10.2.5. To strengthen his stand, he had placed strong reliance on
the following case laws, namely:
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
28
28
(i) M/s. Onward Technologies Limited v. DCIT in ITA No.7985/Mum/2010 dated: 30.4.2013 – AY 2006-07; &
(ii) Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. v. Addl. CIT in ITA No.7872/Mum/2011 dated: 20.4.2013 – AY 2007-08.
11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused
the relevant materials on record and also voluminous evidences produced
by either party in the shape of Paper books.
11.1. We shall now proceed to peruse the judicial views on the issue.
The case laws relied on by the assessee is as under:
(i) Mastek Limited v. Addl. CIT in ITA No.3120/Ahd/2010 dt.29.02.2012:
In this case, the question came up for consideration before the
earlier Bench of this Tribunal was as to whether a minute examination of
functional profile is necessary for the selection of comparables and the
answer given was that functional profile must be first examined and after
that proceed to select the comparable. In this case, the comparables
chosen by the assessee were discussed by the TPO and those were
discarded for the basic reason that the companies those quoted by the
assessee were dealing in product distribution whereas the TPO was of the
view that the AE was nothing but ‘front office’ of the assessee and simply
engaged in marketing activity. After due consideration of the issue, the
Hon’ble Bench had observed thus:
“16.1… (on page 47) It is clear that arm’s length price is to be determined by taking
result of comparable transactions and those transactions must be in comparable
circumstances. It is therefore required to have a proper study of specific
characteristics of controlled transaction. It is also required that there should be
proper study of functions performed so as to match the identical situations under
which functions have been performed. Then risk profile is also required to be
compared. We may like to add that there are so many perspectives which were
required to be compared and in this connection the Hon’ble Courts have also
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
29
29
suggested so, such as, comparison of functional profile, similarity in respect of assets
employed and a thorough screening of the comparables etc. Hence, in the present
case, it is necessary to consider an analysis that whether the comparables selected by
the TPO had analogous functional profile to that of functional profile of the assessee.
It is true that functional profile and assets and risk analysis was made available but
that is to be correctly understood in the light of the nature of International
transaction carried out by the assessee with the said AE. A similar problem was
considered by ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (2011-
TII-07-ITAT-DEL-TP) where the assessee stated to be engaged in the business of
providing electronic data support service to AE and the difficulty arose that the said
function was compared with the companies engaged in the business of development
of software. So the question was that whether a minute examination of functional
profile is necessary for the purpose of selection of comparables and the answer given
was that functional profile must be first examined and after that proceeds to select the
comparables. Interestingly, in the present case now before us, comparables chosen
by the assessee were discussed by the TPO and those were discarded. The basic
reason for rejection of those comparables was that the companies those were quoted
by the assessee were dealing in product distribution whereas the TPO was of the view
that the AE was nothing but ‘front office’ of the assessee and simple engaged in
marking activity. In this context, we are of the view that in order to determine the
most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price, first it is necessary
to select the ‘tested party’ and such a selected party should be least complex and
should not be unique, so that prima facie cannot be distinguished from potential
uncontrolled comparables.”
We are in agreement with the findings of the earlier Bench
(supra) that such a selected party should be least complex and should
not be unique.
(ii) Development Consultants (P) Ltd v. ACIT – 136 TTJ 129 & followed by Sony India (P) Ltd v. DCIT 114 ITD 448: 315 ITR 150 (Cal): The issue before the Tribunal was that the CIT (A) had
confirmed the adjustments to the international transactions of the assessee
with its AEs based at Bahamas, USA without considering the submissions
and the financial of the AEs explaining the facts etc. In case of the merits of
the case for international transactions entered by the assessee with TKC,
the submission made on behalf of the assessee was as under:
“26. 1…………………………………………………………………………………….
2…………………………………………………………………………………………
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
30
30
3………………………………………………………………………………………….
4. TKS is the entrepreneur company and has created significant marketing
intangibles over the years. It uses its marketing intangibles to generate the work and
assumes all the market, price and product risks. TKC came out the work on its own,
only parts of the job are sub-contracted to the assessee for its convenience. Futher,
being an entrepreneur company, it is difficult to determine the profits of ATKC with
respect to work downloaded to India (as the revenue received for work off-shored to
India cannot be separately identified). Further, the revenue generated from the
services provided by the assessee would form only a small part of the entire
operations. The value of engineering drawing and design services rendered by the
assessee to TKC for AY 2002-04 was Rs.1,58,43,923/- and for AY 2004-05 it was
Rs.1,45,77,704/-. The value of service forms approximately 6% to 7% of the Cost of
Sales to TKC. HENCE, THIS Shri Rahul Mitra argued, shows that testing the
margins of TKC would not serve the purpose of determining the arm’s length nature
of the transactions undertaken by the assessee with TKC. Hence, the recourse
available to test the arm’s length price of the services rendered by the assessee to TKC
is to test the margins from the Indian side. In view of the discussion on tested part
earlier, the assessee was selected as the tested party being least complex of the two
entities. Hence, the transfer pricing analysis in this case was done from the Indian
side, wherein, the margins of the assessee with respect to services provided to TKC
were compared internally with services provided to other third parties in foreign
market.
Taking into account the divergent submissions, the Hon’ble Tribunal
had recorded its findings that –
“33. Based on facts and our findings of the case, after due consideration of all the
facts, we conclude that the analysis undertaken by the assessee to determine the
arm’s length price of the international transaction with Datacore USA is correct and
on the basis of the analysis it is seen that transaction undertaken by the taxpayer with
Datacore US is at arm’s length for both the assessment years.”
(iii) In the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. Additional CIT
reported in 110 ITD 428, the Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal had recorded its
findings that -
“58. ……………………………………………………………….. The tested party
normally should be the party in respect of which reliable data for comparison is easily
and readily available and fewest adjustments in computations are needed. It may be
local or foreign entity, i.e., one party to the transaction. The object of transfer pricing
exercise is to gather reliable data, which can be considered without difficulty by both
the parties, i.e., taxpayer and the revenue. It is also true that generally least of the
complex controlled taxpayer should be taken as a tested party. But where comparable
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
31
31
or almost comparable, controlled and uncontrolled transactions or entities are
available, it may not be right to eliminate them from consideration because they look
to be complex. If the taxpayer wishes to take foreign AE as a tested party, then it
must ensure that it is such an entity for which the relevant data for comparison is
available in public domain or is furnished to the tax administration. The taxpayer
is not then entitled to take a stand that such data cannot be called for or insisted upon
from the taxpayer.”
In substance, a foreign entity (a foreign AE) could also be taken as
a tested party for comparison.
11.2. At this juncture, we would like to refer to the United Nation’s
Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries wherein the
selection of the tested party has been dealt with. This Manual has been
the work of many authors which included India, Norway, Nigeria, Italy,
USA, Netherlands, Brazil, China, OECD, Japan etc. For ready reference,
the relevant portion of it observation is extracted as under:
“5.3.3. Selection of the Tested Party:
5.3.3.1. When applying the Cost Plus Method, Resale Price Method or Transactional
Net Margin Method (see further Chapter 6) it is necessary to choose the party to the
transaction for which a financial indicator (mark-up on costs, gross margin, or net
profit indicator) is tested. The choice of the tested party should be consistent with the
functional analysis of the controlled transaction. Attributes of controlled
transaction(s) will influence the selection of the test party (where needed). The tested
party normally should be the less complex party to the controlled transaction and
should be the party in respect of which the most reliable data for comparability is
available. It may be the local or the foreign party. If a taxpayer wishes to select the
foreign associated enterprise as the tested party, it must ensure that the necessary
relevant information about it and sufficient data on comparables is furnished to the
tax administration and vice versa in order for the latter to be able to verify the
selection and application of the transfer pricing method.”
With regard to the challenges emerging in transfer pricing in
India, it has been observed as under:
“10.4. Emerging Transfer Pricing Challenges in India
10.4.1. Transfer pricing Regulations in India
10.4.1.1……………………………………………………………………………..
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
32
32
10.4.1.2………………………………………………………………………………
10.4.1.3………………………………………………………………………………..
The Indian transfer pricing administration prefers Indian comparables in most cases
and also accepts foreign comparables in cases where the foreign associated
enterprise is the less or least complex entity and requisite information is available
about the tested party and comparables.
11.2.1. It was also vouched during the course of hearing by the learned
Sr. Counsel that the financial details including operating margin of
comparable companies along with the back-up computations were
furnished before the TPO in the transfer pricing documentation [Source:
Pages 113 to 210 of the Transfer Pricing Study]. This contradicts the
assertion of the learned DR that the assessee had not furnished any
financial information of the comparable companies.
11.2.2. The United Nation’s Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing also
contradicts the TPO’s argument that GMDAT should not be selected as
the tested party as the comparable companies selected by the assessee
doesn’t fall within his jurisdiction and he can neither call for any additional
information nor scrutinize their books of accounts etc.,
11.2.3. However, we find inconsistency in the stand of the TPO to the
effect that while rejecting the assessee’s approach for selecting GMDAT as
the tested party by citing a reason that there was no reliable data available
for both GMDAT and comparables and, therefore, GMDAT cannot be taken
as the ‘tested party’, however, on the same breath, as rightly highlighted by
the assessee, the TPO had taken GMDAT as the tested party while
making adjustment to transaction relating to payment of royalty by
GMI to GMDAT.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
33
33
11.2.4. Rebutting the Revenue’s allegation made during the course of
proceedings that the segmental financial statement of GMDAT was not
reliable, the assessee reiterates that the segmental data relied upon for
benchmarking international transactions relating to import of CKD Kits and
components was completely reliable and was based on sound allocation
keys. To substantiate its claim, the assessee has also furnished a report
on factual findings certified by the statutory auditors – Deloitte Anjin LLC.
11.2.5. Moreover, we find that the DRP had not considered in great
detail the plea of the assessee as to why GMDAT should not be selected
as the tested party for analyzing the inter-company transactions. Instead,
the DRP had, in a cryptic manner, concluded that the results of assessee
have to be compared with the stand alone results of Mahindra & Mahindra
in the automotive segment.
11.2.6. In this connection, we tend to recall the ruling of the Hon’ble
Jurisdictional High Court [Special Civil Application No.8179 of 2010 dated
31.8.2010] in the case of AIA Engineering Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Patel
through Secretary-DRP & 1. After due consideration of rival submissions,
the Hon’ble Court had ruled thus –
“16…………………………………………………………..If the Dispute Resolution
Panel was of the opinion that the application dated 22.4.2010 could not have been
entertained, it should have considered the objections filed by the petition on merits.
As a consequence of the impugned order, firstly the objections raised by the petitioner
have not been decided, secondly, in view of the directions issued by the Dispute
Resolution Panel, the petitioner would not be in a position to avail of the remedy of
appeal before commissioner (Appeals) against the draft assessment order; and
thirdly, in the light of the observation made by the dispute Resolution Panel that the
petitioner has chosen to withdraw the objections, preferring any appeal against the
impugned order before any forum would be an exercise in futility, as no appeal would
be entertained against an order passed on a concession. Thus, the dispute Resolution
Panel has virtually closed all doors for the petitioner. In the circumstances, impugned
order of the Dispute Resolution Panel suffers from the vide of being contrary to the
record as well as non-application of mind, in as much as the petitioner had never
sought withdrawal of the objections filed by it. The impugned order also causes
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
34
34
immense prejudice to the petitioner as recorded hereinabove. In the circumstances,
the impugned order of the Dispute Resolution Panel, therefore, cannot be
sustained….”
11.3. We shall now peruse the case laws on which the learned DR
had placed reliance in the findings of the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunals in the
cases of (i) Aurionpro Solutions Ltd v. Addl. CIT in ITA No.7872/Mum/2011
dated 12.4.2013; and (ii) M/s Onward Technologies Ltd v. DCIT (OSD) in
ITA No.7985/Mum/2010 dated 30.4.2013.
(i) In the case of Aurionpro Solutions Ltd (supra), the issue
before the Hon’ble Bench was that the assessee engaged in the business
of software development and web designing services and that the
assessee had lent loans to its AEs stationed at USA, Singapore and
Bahrain. The assessee had claimed that the said loans as working capital
advanced to its 100% subsidiary outside India. When the issue was
referred to TPO, the TPO took a view that as in a third party comparable
situation, advances would bear interest and, therefore, need to charge a
markup as per CUP method. Accordingly, the TPO proposed to
benchmark the loans at dollar denominated LIBO [London Inter Bank
Operative] rate plus mark up of 3%. When the issue landed up before the
DRP, the DRP had, after analyzing the issue, directed the AO/TPO to
compute the interest on loans to AE @ 14% per annum thereby enhanced
the transfer pricing adjustment. Aggrieved assessee took up the issue with
the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Tribunal, after due consideration of the issue in
depth and for the reasons recorded therein, directed the AO/TPO to
determine the arm’s length interest at Libor plus 2% on the monthly closing
balance of advances during the FY.
We have, with due regards, perused the issue and the findings
of the Hon’ble Bench in detail. Ironically, the main issue before the Bench
was the percentage of the interest to be calculated on the loan advanced
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
35
35
by the assessee to its foreign AEs. We are, therefore, of the view that this
case is not directly applicable to the issue under dispute.
(ii) In the case of M/s. Onward Technologies Ltd (supra) as
relied on by the Revenue, it is observed that the assessee, a parent
company had international transaction with its AEs. With regard to IT
enabled services provide to its AEs, the assessee had chosen six
comparables with its foreign AEs as a tested party. The TPO had ignored
the working of the assessee whereby selecting 20 comparable cases.
When the issue reached before the Tribunal for resolve, the Hon’ble Bench
had, after having considered rival submissions, recorded its findings,
among others, as under:
“11.2.2. (On page 12)………………………………………………………………….
So, it is the profit actually realized by the Indian assessee from the transaction with
its foreign AE which is compared with that of the comparables. There can be no
question of substituting the profit realized by the Indian enterprise from its foreign
AE with the profit realized by the foreign AE from the ultimate customers for the
purposes of determining the ALP of the international transaction of the Indian
enterprise with its foreign AE. The scope of TP adjustment under the Indian taxation
law is limited to transaction between the assessee and its foreign AE. It can neither
call for also roping in and taxing in India the margin from the activities undertaken
by the foreign AE nor can it curtail the profit arising out of transaction between the
Indian and foreign AE at arm’s length. The contention of the ld. AR in considering
the profit of the foreign AE as ‘profit A’ for the purposes of comparison with profit or
comparables, being ‘profit B’, to determine the ALP of transaction between the
assessee and its foreign AE, misses the wood from the tree by making the substantive
section 92 otiose and the definition of ‘internal transaction’ u/s 92B and rule 10B
redundant. This is patently an unacceptable position having no sanction of the
Indian transfer pricing law. Borrowing a contrary mandate of the TP provisions of
other countries and reading it into our provisions is not permissible. The
requirement under our law is to compute the income from an international
transaction between two AEs having regard to its ALP and the same is required to be
strictly adhered to as prescribed. This contention is, therefore, repelled.”
With have duly perused the findings of the Hon’ble Bench cited
supra. In this connection, we would like to point out that various Tribunals
have taken divergent views in respect of selection of ‘tested party’. To
illustrate, the earlier Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mastek Limited
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
36
36
(supra) had stressed that (at the cost of repetition) “we are of the view that in
order to determine the most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price, first it
is necessary to select the ‘tested party’ and such a selected party should be least complex and
should not be unique, so that prima facie cannot be distinguished from potential uncontrolled
comparables”.
The Hon’ble Calcutta Tribunal in the case of Development
Consultants (P) Ltd (supra) had recorded its findings that “33. Based on facts
and our findings of the case, after due consideration of all the facts, we conclude that the
analysis undertaken by the assessee to determine the arm’s length price of the international
transaction with Datacore USA is correct and on the basis of the analysis it is seen that
transaction undertaken by the taxpayer with Datacore US is at arm’s length for both the
assessment years.”
Thirdly, the Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy
Laboratories Limited (supra) took a stand that ‘If the taxpayer wishes to take
foreign AE as a tested party, then it must ensure that it is such an entity for which the relevant
data for comparison is available in public domain or is furnished to the tax administration.’
Then, the United Nation’s Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing
for Developing Countries had observed that “5.3.3.1…… The tested party
normally should be the less complex party to the controlled transaction and should be the
party in respect of which the most reliable data for comparability is available. It may be the
local or the foreign party. If a taxpayer wishes to select the foreign associated enterprise as
the tested party, it must ensure that the necessary relevant information about it and sufficient
data on comparables is furnished to the tax administration….”
11.4. Considering the divergent views expressed by various
Tribunals (supra) and majority of them were in favour of selecting the
‘tested party’ either from local or foreign party and the United Nation’s
Practical Manual on transfer pricing for developing countries had observed
that ‘It may be the local or the foreign party’, we tend to agree with the
same.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
37
37
11.5. Reverting back to the issue, the assessee submitted that in the
transfer pricing documentation, it had provided the business profit of all 101
comparables selected by the assessee.
11.5.1. The DRP in its findings at para 11 had stated, among others,
that in most cases the tested party will be the least complex of the
controlled tax payers, and will not own valuable intangible property or
unique assets that distinguish it from potential uncontrolled comparables.
As GMDAT is not only a complex entity owning valuable intangibles, the
data for comparability of GMDAT or the comparable is also not available.
11.5.2. This view of the DRP has been denied by the learned Sr.
Counsel during the course of hearing which has not been contradicted by
the Revenue with any documentary evidence.
11.6. To sum up, it was the argument of the assessee that if
stringent comparability analysis as adopted by the TPO were to be
adopted, and then M&M should also be put to such a stringent
comparability test. It was, further, argued that M&M is also involved in the
manufacture of multi utility vehicles, light commercial vehicles as well as
three wheelers apart from passenger cars. It was, further, countered by
the assessee if Force Motor Limited were to be rejected on the basis of
different profit profile and then M&M should also be axed on the same
logic. We find force in the above argument of the assessee. According to
the assessee, GMDAT is only engaged in manufacturing and supply of
certain components used in manufacturing of cars only. This has not been
disputed by the revenue.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
38
38
11.6.1. We are in disagreement with the revenue’s argument that
GMDAT should not be selected as a ‘tested party’ as the comparable as
the comparable companies selected by the assessee doesn’t fall within the
ambit of TPO’s jurisdiction and, thus, he can neither call for any additional
information nor scrutinize their books of accounts. The Revenue can get
all the relevant particulars around the globe by using the latest technology
under its thumb or direct the assessee to furnish the same.
11.6.2. As rightly highlighted by the assessee, we find inconsistency
in the approach of the TPO with regard to the issue of ‘tested party’. On
the one hand, the TPO averred that there was no reliable data available for
both GMDAT and comparables; however, on the other hand, he had
conveniently taken GMDAT as the ‘tested party’ while making adjustment
to transaction relating to payment of royalty by the assessee to GMDAT.
This exposes the inconsistency approach of the TPO.
11.6.3. The financial statements of comparable companies have since
been audited by the independent auditors and, thus, there can be no
reservation in placing a reliance on the same.
11.6.4. However, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that segment
financial data for benchmarking - a part of GMDAT’s business - was made
available to the TPO and also on his request, the financial statements of
GMDAT (at company level) was furnished to the TPO and the same is not
disputed. Therefore, there should be no grievance on the part of the
Revenue to say that no sufficient data was made available.
11.6.5. Taking all the above facts and circumstances of the issue
as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, in consonance with the
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
39
39
case laws quoted (supra) and also the United Nation’s Practical
Manual on transfer pricing, we direct the TPO to adopt GMDAT as the
‘tested party’ for analyzing the inter-company transactions of the
assessee for both the AYs under consideration. To facilitate the TPO
to analyze the inter-company transactions in the case of the assessee
by selecting GMDAT as ‘tested party’ as directed above, this issue is
restored on the files of the TPO. It is ordered accordingly.
Gr. No.2 Disallowance of Rs.3,14,830/- and Rs.2,91,258/- being proportionate lease charges in respect of lease-hold land for the AYs 2006-07 & 07-08: 12. The assessee had claimed the expenses of Rs.3.14 lakhs
and Rs.2.91 lakhs being amortized over the period of lease of 99 years in
respect of lease-hold land. The lease-hold land was initially acquired under
a lease agreement by Hindustan Motors Limited from Gujarat Industrial
Development Corporation. Subsequently, the land was assigned by HML
to the assessee vide assignment deed. By virtue of such an assignment,
according to the assessee, the assessee has only got right to use the
lease-hold land for the purpose of its business. The assessee has the right
for the possession and use of land till the expiry of the said lease period.
However, the AO had disallowed the amounts claimed by the assessee
by following the decision of the earlier Bench of this Tribunal in the
assessee’s own case for the AYs 1997-98 and 98-99. The DRP upheld
the disallowance by placing reliance in the case of United Phosphorus Ltd
v. CIT (81 ITD 553).
12.1. Before us, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the Hon’ble
jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. [329
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
40
40
ITR 479 (Guj)] on similar facts ruled in favour of the assessee. A SLP filed
by the Revenue against the said ruling was also dismissed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide Spl. Leave Appeal (Civil) CC 19002/2009 dated
4.12.2009. In view of the above, it was pleaded that the disallowances
require to be deleted.
12.1.2. The DR present was heard and also perused the case laws
relied on by the Revenue.
12.1.3. At the outset, we would like to point out that the Hon’ble
jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd.
(supra) on an identical issue dismissed the Revenue’s appeal by affirming
the Tribunal’s findings that ‘merely because the deed was registered, the
transaction in question would not assume as different character. The lease
rent was nominal. By obtaining the land on lease, the capital structure of
the assessee did not under go any change. The assessee only acquired a
facility to carry on business profitably by paying nominal lease rent. In the
light of the aforesaid findings of fact and the ratio of the Apex Court
decisions, the Court does not find this to be a case which warrants
interference…’
12.1.4. In consonance with the ruling of the Hon’ble Court (supra), this
issue is decided in favour of the assessee for both the AYs under dispute.
It is ordered accordingly.
12.1.5. Before parting with, we would like to reiterate that we have duly
perused the case laws on which the revenue had placed strong reliance.
Since, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sun
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
41
41
Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. (supra) ruled in favour of the assessee, we have
allowed the assessee’s ground(s) on this point.
Gr.3 Disallowance of gift expenses of Rs.4,16,978/- & Rs.5,15,876/- for the AYS 2006-07 & 2007-08:
13. The assessee had claimed expenses under the head ‘gift’ to the
tune of Rs.4.16 lakhs and Rs.5.15 lakhs for the AYs under consideration
pertaining to diwali, gifts made to dealers, business associates, employees
etc., during the course of business. The AOs have, however, disallowed
such expenditure on the premise that the assessee manufactures
passenger cars and the sale of the same is being effected through its
authorized dealers and, thus, there is no need for incurring such
expenditure.
13.1. DRP had also rejected the assessee’s claim on the ground that
the assessee had not submitted any evidence in support of the claims that
the expenditure incurred on gifts etc., was only for the purpose of its
business and not for directors or their relatives.
13.2. Before us, it was claimed by the assessee that the expenses
incurred duly satisfy the conditions stipulated in s. 37(1) of the Act as the
same were neither in the nature of capital nor personal. It was, further,
claimed that the expenses were incurred for maintaining and furthering
good and cordial business relationship with its business associates
including the employees and promoting the business activities of the
assessee on an on-going basis. It was, further, justified that the practice of
giving such gifts is customary and unavoidable having regard to the
competitive environment the assessee operates in and the same of utmost
requirement to enable smooth running of its business so as to generate
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
42
42
goodwill etc. It was asserted that the expenses have since been incurred
wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business, the assessee had
satisfied the conditions stipulated in s. 37(1) of the Act. To strengthen its
argument, the assessee sought to place reliance on the various judicial
pronouncements including the following case laws:
(i) S.A. Builders Ltd v. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC);
(ii) CIT v. S L M.Maneklal Industries Ltd (1977) 107 ITR 133 (GUJ);
(iii) Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sales Ginning and Pressing Society v.
CIT 199 ITR 17 (Guj);
(iv) ACIT v. Vodafone Essazr Gujarat Ltd (ITA Nos.1361 & 1878/2009 (Ahd)
The learned DR present was heard.
13.3. As rightly highlighted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the
assessee, it is rather customary in this line of business to present
complementary gifts to the visiting dignitaries, patrons, dealers, business
associates so as to maintain cordiality, rapport etc., Under these
circumstances, the amounts spent for giving presents to them could be
said to be expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its
business since this amount was spent for keeping alive its good image
amongst its patrons and ensuring that goodwill and ensuring the continuity
of business with them as before. Since these kinds of gifts have been
presented during the course of business, the expenditure incurred under
this head was nothing but business expediency which falls within the
purview of s. 37(1) of the Act. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the
authorities below were not justified in rejecting the assessee’s legitimate
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
43
43
claim on the issue. In essence, this issue goes in favour of the assessee
for both the AYs. It is ordered accordingly.
Gr.4 & 5: Disallowance of Rs.2,50,68,560/- & Rs.2,44,28,818/-on account of provision for slow moving and obsolete inventory made by the assessee for the AYS 2006-07 & 2007-08: 14. Briefly, the assessee had debited [for the AY 2007-08] total
provision amounting to Rs.9,75,15,307/- to the P & L account on account of
‘wastage and obsolete’ material. The said provision comprised of the
following:
(i) Rs.73,30,86,489/- on account of process rejects, material scrapped, contract cancellation for obsolete material and shortage on physical inventory count etc., &
(ii) Rs.2,44,28,818/- on account of provision for slow moving and obsolete inventory being net increase in provision during the year.
14.1. Even though, the AO had accepted the claim of the assessee
with regard to expense of Rs.73.3 crores on account of process rejects,
material scrapped, contract cancellation for obsolete material and shortage
on physical inventory count, however, disallowed the claim of Rs.2.44
crores on account of provision for slow moving and obsolete inventory
being net increase in provision during the year by placing reliance on the
Tribunal’s order in the assessee’s own case for the AYs 1997-98 & 98-99
wherein it was held that the market value of the wastage/obsolete materials
should be included for calculating the total income.
14.2. The DRP, on its part, rejected the assessee’s objection on the
premise that the assessee had not led any evidence that the findings of the
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
44
44
jurisdictional Tribunal has been challenged or reversed by the Hon’ble High
Court.
14.3. During the course of hearing, the submissions of the learned
Sr. Counsel are summed up as under:
(a) That according to the regular accounting method followed, the
closing stock of inventories is valued at cost or market value whichever is
lower;
(b) That a provision was, therefore, created for inventory which is
identified as slow moving or obsolete. The slow moving/obsolete inventory
level is determined through SAP as per the uniform policy adopted for
identification of such inventory and it does not involve manual intervention.
There are over 24000 different parts required in assembly of a single car
and it is practically not possible to determine the market value of each and
every part as and when the parts are identified as obsolete, waste or slow
moving;
(c) High level of obsolescence in the assessee’s line of business is for
the reason that thousands of different parts are required to be assembled
to manufacture a car and also to provide warranty services. The assessee
has to maintain adequate inventory to ensure that the manufacturing
process or warranty services are not affected. Therefore, owing to
assessee’s business requirement, it has to maintain huge stock. A part of
these stocks become obsolete on account of several reasons, including the
fact that a model may get discontinued during the year or the inventory
may be otherwise non-usable;
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
45
45
(d) Further, the assessee regularly reviews the provisions made and, if
upon such review, it is observed that some stocks have been utilized or
certain stock is no more slowing moving or obsolete, the assessee
reverses the provision made in the earlier years;
(e) That the AO had erred in following the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal
in a mechanical manner and had failed to examine the issue on merits
based on facts and law applicable during the years under assessments.
The AO had also failed to recognize that the legislature has included
specific provision under the Act vide s. 145A which was inserted by the
Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 w. e. f. 1.4.1999 with regard to valuation of
closing stock that enables the assessee to value inventory for the purpose
of determining the income chargeable under the head ‘profit and gains of
business and profession’ in accordance with the method of accounting
regular employed by the assessee. The Hon’ble Tribunal, accordingly, did
not have the occasion to examine the accounting policy which is being
consistently followed by the assessee with respect to obsolete and slow
moving inventory in light of specific provisions of s 145A of the Act
introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999. Hence, the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal will
have limited applicability only for AYs 1997-98 and 1998-99 and will not be
binding precedent for subsequent years including the AYs under dispute.
The AO, instead of considering the submission of the assessee, relied on
the findings of the Hon’ble Tribunal which were binding only for the AYs
1997-98 and 98-99;
(f) Without prejudice, that in any event the disallowance proposed by the
AO was erroneous as the entire cost of the inventories has been added
back. The disallowance has been made on the ground that the market
value of the obsolete stocks needs to be added as directed by the Hon’ble
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
46
46
Tribunal for the AYs. 1997-98 and 98-99.The AO had, erroneously
assumed that the entire sums of Rs.2.5 crores and Rs.2.44 crores
represent the market values of the inventory and had failed to appreciate
that the above amounts represent the cost of inventories to the assessee
and not the market value thereof. Even if any addition can be made for
the market value of such obsolete inventories, it was evident that proposed
disallowances of Rs.2.5 crores and Rs.2.44 crores were unjustified as that
values represent the cost and not the realizable value/market value of such
obsolete stocks;
(g) That the Hon’ble Bench had held that the market/scrap value of
obsolete stock should be included for computing the total income and,
accordingly, the AO was directed to adjudicate the issue afresh. The AO
had granted relief to the assessee as per the directions of the Tribunal for
the AYs 1997-98 & 98-99 after taking into consideration the realizable
value estimated and assigned to scrap which had already been accounted
for in the books of account, and, thus, no further adjustments were made
while giving effect to the Tribunal’s order for the said AYs; &
(h) That the disallowances of Rs.2.5 crores and Rs.2.44 crores were
therefore erroneous and require to be deleted.
14.4. The learned DR present supported the stand of the authorities
below on this count.
14.5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and also
perused the findings of the earlier Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s
own case for the AYs 1997-98 and 1998-99 and also the specific provision
of s. 145A which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 w. e. f.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
47
47
1.4.1999 with regard to valuation of closing stock which enables the
assessee to value inventory for the purpose of determining the income
chargeable under the head ‘profit and gains of business and profession’ in
accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the
assessee. During the course of hearing, the learned Sr. Counsel had
categorically stated that no further adjustment was made by the AO while
giving effect to the findings of the earlier Bench of this Tribunal in the
assessee’s own case for the AYs 1997-98 and 1998-99 [Courtesy: Page 10
of written submission of the AR dated 19.6.2012].
14.6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the issue and also
keeping the principles of natural justice and equity in view, this issue is
restored on the files of the AO with a directions to look into the matter
afresh and to take appropriate action after due verification of the assertion
of the assessee in the matter as recorded in hereinabove. In substance,
these grounds for both the AYs under consideration are treated as allowed
in favour of the assessee.
15. For the AY 2006-07, in ground No.5, the assessee raised an
issue to the effect that ”without prejudice, the AO/DRP erred in not allowing
a deduction of Rs.3,67,03,644/- being provision for slow moving and
obsolete inventory reversed during the year and credited to the P & L
account which had already been disallowed in earlier year(s) in spite of the
same having been verified and accepted by the AO himself in the remand
report furnished before the DRP.”
15.1. On a perusal of the directions of the DRP dated 27.8.2010; it is
observed that the issue has been dealt with by the DRP. For ready
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
48
48
reference, the relevant portions of the directions of DRP are extracted as
under:
“73.4.11. Further, vide supplementary submissions filed on 10th
June, 2010 with the
Panel, the assessee has submitted a chart showing movement of slow moving/obsolete
inventory under various heads for the previous years ended March 31, 2005 and
March 31, 2006 indicating that there has been a net reversal of provision amounting
to Rs.1,16,35,084/- during the financial year 2005-06 as summarized below.
Increase in provision amounting to Rs.2,50,68,560/- under the sub-head
‘Inventory vehicles-excess & obsolete basic’
Reduction of provision amounting to Rs.3,67,03,644/- under the sub-head
‘Inventory P&A – excess and obsolete’.
It has been submitted that the AO has proposed to disallow the incremental provision,
without considering the reversal of provision amounting to Rs.3,67,03,644/- on other
items. It has been submitted that in case the addition in respect of slow
moving/obsolete stock is sustained in principle, then without prejudice to the claim of
the assessee, a further deduction of Rs.3.67 crores (being provision reversed during
the year which have been disallowed in earlier year(s) should be allowed.
73.4.12. The assessee’s arguments have been considered carefully, but the same are
found not acceptable. It is admitted fact that identical issue came up for
consideration before the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case for AY 1997-98
and 1998-99. the ITAT, Ahmedabad, Bench ‘D’ vide order No.1392 &
1393/Ahd/2004 dated 23.12.2008 has held that the market value of the scrap of such
wastage/obsolete materials as on the 31st March of the financial year should be added
to total income. The assessee has not led any evidence that the said decision of the
Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case has been reversed by the High Courts. The
assessee has not submitted any details/evidence to show that it has even challenge
dthe said finding of the Hon’ble ITAT. Hence, respectfully following the above
decision of the Hon’ble ITAT it is held that, the market value of such obsolete
material as on the 31st March 2006 is to be taken and added to the total income. The
AO has determined the market value of such obsolete stock is Rs.2,50,68,560/- being
the net increase in the provision made during the year for slow moving and obsolete
inventory. The said fact has not been controverted by the assessee and no evidence
has been led either before the AO or before us to substantiate that the market value of
such obsolete stock was different as determined by the AO. Hence, the said proposed
addition of Rs.2,50,68,560/- is confirmed.”
15.2. However, during the course of hearing before us, the learned
Sr. Counsel drew our attention to the effect that [at the cost of repetition]
the Hon’ble Bench had held that the market/scrap value of obsolete stock
should be included for computing the total income and, accordingly, the AO
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
49
49
was directed to adjudicate the issue afresh. The AO had granted relief to
the assessee as per the directions of the Tribunal for the AYs 1997-98 &
98-99 after taking into consideration the realizable value estimated and
assigned to scrap which had already been accounted for in the books of
account, and, thus, no further adjustments were made while giving effect to
the Tribunal’s order for the said AYs. Further, the learned Sr. Counsel had
asserted that the deduction of Rs.3,67,03,644/- being provision for slow
moving and obsolete inventory reversed during the year and credited to
the P & L account had already been disallowed in earlier year(s) and the
same having been verified and accepted by the AO himself in the remand
report furnished before the DRP.
15.2.1 The learned DR present was also heard.
15.3. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned Sr.
Counsel on the issue. Ironically, the DRP took a stand by citing the
findings of the earlier Bench of this Tribunal for the AYs 1997-98 and 98-99
(supra) that the market value of such obsolete material as on 31st March
2006 is to be taken and added to the total income. However, the learned
Sr. Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO granted relief to the
assessee as per the directions of the ITAT for the AYs 1997-98 and 98-99
after taking into consideration the realizable value estimated at
Rs.2,38,549/- and Rs.82,120/- assigned to scrap for AYs 97-98 & 98-99
respectively which had already been accounted for in the books of account
and no further adjustment was made while giving effect to the order of the
ITAT for those assessment years etc. [Refer: AR’s written submission
dated: 19.6.2012 on page 10] This fact has not been disputed by the
Revenue.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
50
50
15.4. Taking into consideration of the above scenario and the fact
that the disallowances of the provisions for slow moving and obsolete
inventory made for the AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 have since been
restored on the files of the AO and also that the AO had, according to the
assessee, conceded in his remand report furnished before the DRP that
the deduction of Rs.3,67,03,644/- being provision for slow moving and
obsolete inventory reversed during the year and credited to the P & L
account which had already been disallowed in the earlier year(s) etc., we
are of the considered view that this issue also requires to be looked into by
the AO. To facilitate the AO to do the exercise, this issue is restored on the
file of the AO for needful. It is ordered accordingly.
Gr. No.6 [For AY 06-07]: Disallowance out of workmen and staff welfare expenses account – Rs.10.6 lakhs:
16. Briefly, the assessee had claimed an expenditure of
Rs.10,89,67,670/- under the head ‘workmen and staff welfare’. According
to the AO, since some of the expenses have increased disproportionately
from the previous year, the assessee was required to explain the same. It
was submitted by the assessee that the increase was primarily due to an
exceptional provision for PF liability of Rs.5.44 crores booked under the
head ‘Admn. Employee welfare and recreation’. Excluding the said sum,
there was an increase of Rs.1.06 crores. It was explained by the assessee
that there has been an increase in the employees’ strength from 1649 to
1882 during the year under consideration. It was, further, explained that as
workmen and staff welfare expenses were largely a function of the
employee head count, the increase in head count coupled with the general
inflation had resulted in increase in costs over the previous year. In
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
51
51
conclusion, it was submitted that the mere fact of increase in costs over the
previous year cannot be a ground for disallowance.
16.1. The AO had, however, took a stand that the aspect of
increase in workmen and staff welfare expenses was examined in the AY
2002-03 also and the same was partly found to be unverifiable and
considering the same and also in view of the possibility of inclusion of
certain expenditure for non-business purposes, a disallowance of Rs.10.6
lakhs being 10% of Rs.1.06 crores was made.
16.2. Aggrieved, the assessee took up the issue with the DRP for
relief. The DRP had, after due consideration of the assessee’s contention
as recorded in its direction, confirmed the addition for the reasoning that -
“73.3.7………….The assessee has not submitted any cogent reason as to
why there is such abnormal increase in said expense as compared to last
year. Further, the AO has given a finding that the entire expense on this
account is not verifiable…”
16.3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the
rival parties during the course of hearing.
16.3.1. At the outset, we would like to point out the prime reasoning
for the AO to resort to make an ad-hoc disallowance of 10% was that he
had compared the expenses claimed for the AY under dispute with that of
the expenses incurred for the AY 2002-03 and came to a conclusion that
there may be a possibility of inclusion of certain expenditure for non-
business purposes too. The logic adopted by the AO in making such an
ad-hoc disallowance, in our considered view, was not on a sound footing.
The assessee had, in fact, attributed the increase in expenditure due to
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
52
52
increase in the work force [precisely from 1649 to 1882 employees] during
the year under consideration. This crucial aspect has not been given due
weight-age.
16.3.2. The DRP had recorded in its directions that the assessee
had not submitted any cogent reason for such an increase as compared to
the last year. It had, further, recorded that “the AO has given a finding that
the entire expenses on this account is not verifiable’’. However, on a
perusal of the AO’s finding, it is observed that no such an observation is
finding a place. In a nut-shell, the AO had not come out with any
documentary evidence to remotely suggest that an ad-hoc disallowance
was warranted in this case. In judicial parlance, an ad-hoc disallowance
doesn’t stand the testimony of law. As a matter of fact, no disallowance
can be resorted to for the sake of making a disallowance. While making
any disallowance, it must be ensured that such a disallowance shall
withstand further scrutiny.
16.3.3. In view of the above, we are of the firm view that the
authorities below were not justified in disallowing a sum of Rs.10,60,000/-
on this count that too an ad-hoc basis. Therefore, we hereby delete the
addition of Rs.10,60,000/- being disallowance of workman & staff welfare
expense.
Gr. No.9: Additions of Rs.12.18 Crores & Rs.16.32. Crores in respect Gr.No.10 of Tech. Centre Operations for the AYs. 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively: 17. During the years under consideration, the assessee had
provided certain engineering and R & D services to its AEs and earned a
net operating profit of 10.22% over total costs. The TPO had objected to
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
53
53
the ALP margin computed for provision of engineering services. He had
also rejected four comparable companies and finally proposed four
following companies as comparables:
(i) Rolta India Limited, (ii) Ace Software Exports Limited,
(iii) KLG Systel Limited, & (iv) Powersoft Global solutions Limited. 17.1. The DRP had, in its directions, agreed with the TPO’s stand.
During the course of hearing, the assessee had object to the comparables
selected by the TPO on the following grounds:
(i) Rolta India Limited: During the year under consideration, the company
had undergone business restructuring as per its annual report and, thus,
this company cannot be a comparable on the ground of functional
dissimilarity.
Relies on the following case laws:
(a) Petro Araldite Private Limited v. DCIT – ITA No.6217/Mum/2012; &
(b) Capital IQ Information Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd v. DICT – ITA
No.6961/Hyd/2011 dated 23.11.2012.
(ii) Powersoft Global solutions Limited:
Since this company is engaged in diversified business operations and all
these services apart from engineering services are functionally different
from the assessee.
Comparables rejected by the TPO:
17.2. The submissions of the assessee are under:
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
54
54
(i) Onward Technologies Ltd: The TPO had rejected Onward stating that
the company had related party transactions of 65 per cent of sales. In this
regard, it was submitted that the TPO erred while not considering the
consolidated results; that in preparing the consolidated statements, the
profit made on inter-company transactions would be eliminated and,
therefore, the margins earned in the inter-company transactions would be
totally eliminated in the consolidated financial states. Thus, the result from
consolidated P & L account of the company has been used for the purpose
of benchmarking the engineering services of the assessee. Thus, the TPO
had erred in making an erroneous observation and, accordingly, Onward
requires to be considered as a comparable.
(ii) Pentasoft Technologies Limited (Pentasoft): The TPO had rejected
Pentasoft based on the segmental revenue from operation for the financial
year 2006-07 being less than last year’s sale and that almost all sales were
to related party. It was submitted that the subsidiary company Pentasoft,
Esoftcom ((Mauritious) Limited is also engaged in rendering services which
is in the alignment with the functions performed by the assessee.
According to the assessee, Esoftcom (Mauritius) Ltd provides its
international clients a broad range of services through its three divisions,
namely, The Business software Division, the Engineering Division and the
Education and training division. The engineering Division will provide
engineering software, consulting services and product design, architectural
design services, interactive media and electronic and embedded systems.
The target market will be the automotive, aerospace and heavy
engineering industries.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
55
55
17.3. However, the TPO had rejected Pentasoft on the premise that
the company has declining revenue during the financial year 2006-07.
Rebutting the TPO’s stand, it was submitted that there are no specific
provisions under Indian transfer pricing regulations that require a de facto
rejection of companies with declining revenue. Moreover, the TPO had not
provided any concrete rationale to substantiate that the company had
negative phase of economic cycle. Relies on the findings of the Hon’ble
Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sony India (P) Ltd.
(iii) PSI Data Systems Limited [PSI]: The TPO had rejected PSI on the
ground that the company is engaged in functions different from that of the
assessee thereby quoting incorrect text from annual report. As per the
company’s website, the software segment of the company is involved in the
provision of application services, product engineering, information
management and IT Infrastructure management services. It was submitted
that even though the company is engaged in services other than
engineering services, only relevant segmental results pertaining to the
provisions of engineering services has been considered in the computation
of the arm’s length range for the assessee. Thus, the TPO had erred in
rejecting PSI as a comparable to the assessee.
(iv) Tata Technologies Limited: The TPO had rejected this company as
it is a software development company and basically engaged in providing
life cycle management technology services and that it has more than 7 per
cent handling and distribution expenses and also has related party
transactions and, therefore, it is functionally different from the business of
the assessee.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
56
56
Assessee’s submission:
17.4. It was, however, asserted that as per the annual report of the
company, the company’s business operations is related to engineering
services and that its marketing expenses in the FY ending 2007 was only
3.31 percent of total revenue which was a part of business activity like any
other company who incurs such expenses to boost their product sales and
expand their business operations etc.
17.5. Thus, the TPO had erred in stating that the company is
having more than 7 per cent handling and distribution expenses thereby
classifying it as in different function segment of carrying out its marketing
activities.
17.6. Moreover, the subsidiary companies of Tata Technologies are
also engaged in rendering engineering services which is in alignment with
the functions performed by the assessee. Since the international
transactions are undertaken with a subsidiary engaged in similar
operations, consolidated financial statements of Tata Technologies have
been considered for the purpose of benchmarking. Hence, the TPO had
erroneously rejected comparable company for reasons which are not in
accordance with the objective of under-taking a fair transfer pricing analysis
and, accordingly, Tata Technologies should be considered as a
comparable.
17.6.1 It was claimed by the assessee that before the DRP the detailed
workings were furnished, however, no direction was issued in this behalf.
The adjustment was, however, allowed by the DRP in the FYs. 2005-06
and 2007-08.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
57
57
17.7. On the other hand, the Revenue had refuted the assessee’s
claim as under:
(a) That the assessee had claimed that routine and low-value added
functions were outsourced to various tech centres across the world
including India, however, had failed to explain the presence of highly
qualified metallurgical and IT personnel from IISc, Bangalore and other
Indian Institutes;
(b) That even the software admitted by the assessee to have been used
by the Tech Centre enables high end research. High end research would
not mean merely developing additional codes of software. Admittedly, the
team is engaged in developing use for futuristic materials, safety related
research, integration of control and telemetric software etc., Thus, the claim
of the assessee that CAD/CAM is different from high end research services
and consequent inference that the Centre is not engaged in high end
research is incorrect and is liable to be rejected.
(A) Selection of comparables for Tech Centre Operations: (i) Rolta India Limited: (a) That as per the details given by the assessee, the restructuring has
been done on 5.7.2007 i.e., in AY 2008-09 and Rotla results for the AY
2007-08 have been finalized on 30/6/2007 and, hence, the issue is
irrelevant for the year under consideration;
(b) That the Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench in the case of Capital IQ
Information systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that a company cannot
be considered as a comparable because of exceptional final results due to
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
58
58
mergers/de-mergers. In this case, there is no exceptional final result due
to merger/demerger;
(c ) That the assessee’s Tech Centre Operations are not low end captive
operation, but, full fledged R & D activity liable to be compared with a high
end research oriented company. The functional profile of Rolta is seen that
there is functional similarity between the two companies. Hence, the
reliance placed on Bindview India Pvt. Ltd [ITA NO.1386/PN/10] by the
assessee is liable to be rejected;
(d) That the assessee had termed that Rolta is a company with
abnormal margins. In the case of SAP Lab India Pvt. Ltd [ITA
No.398/Bang/20], the margin was 72% and in the case of Saunay Jewels
Pvt. Ltd, the margin was 53.81% and, thus, the margins in those cases
were in the range of 54% to 72% which have been found to be high by the
Hon’ble Tribunal(s). However, the margin of Rolta India Ltd being 38.79%
as adopted by the TPO which doesn’t come in the ambit of exceptionally
high margin. Moreover, in many cases, the Benches of the Tribunal have
held that high profitability of a company cannot be a ground for its
exclusion from comparable and, thus, Rolta India Ltd is found to be a
comparable one.
(ii) Powersoft Global Solutions Limited: (a) That the company is engaged in CAD/CAM/GIS/other design
services and offers a proper comparable for the assessee. Hence, the plea
of the assessee that the company is not functionally comparable is
incorrect and is liable to be rejected.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
59
59
(B) Rejection of comparables by the TPO:
(i) Onward Technologies Limited:
The comparable has been rejected because of related party transaction of
over 65%. It is a settled position that any related party transaction over
25% would render a comparable liable to rejection.
Relies on the following case laws:
(a) Sony India Ltd 114 ITD 448(Del);
(b) Teva India Pvt. Ltd (20z11-TII-28-ITAT-MUM-TP)
(c) Mentor Graphics (Noida)(P) Ltd v. DCIT (2007) 109 ITD 101(Del);
(d) Global Logic India (P) Ltd v. DCIT – 46 SOT 285 (Del)(URO)
(ii) Pentasoft Technologies Limited: A company with significant related party transactions cannot be taken as a
comparable. In this case, the related party transactions are to the extent of
over 80%, there is no question of accepting this company as comparable.
(iii) PSI Data Systems Limited:
Extensively quoting the Press Release of the company dated 13.8.2009 –
Post restructuring, the TPO had claimed that ‘As is evident from the above
press release, even after reorganization, post 2009, the company is not in
engineering design. It was alleged by the Revenue that the assessee had
misled by quoting that only engineering related accounts have been
adopted for computing comparable margins. The accounts of PSI Data
system was available as a consolidated account and no segmental were
available. The assessee had adopted the entire turnoff of PSI Data
Systems for computing the margins and not segmental accounts.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
60
60
(iv) Tata Technologies Limited: The TPO had rejected this company as it
is a software development company and basically engaged in providing life
cycle management technology services and that it has more than 7 per
cent handling and distribution expenses and also has related party
transactions and, therefore, it is functionally different from the business of
the assessee.
17.8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on the
issue as recorded supra.
The DRP for the AY 2007-08 had, in a unique way cryptically
recorded its directions as under:
“11………………………………………………………………………………
The assessee has not given any arguments against Ace Software Exports Limited and
KLG Systel Ltd. M/s. Powersoft Global solutions Limited does not have related party
transactions. Rolta India Limited has only 20% related party transactions.
Therefore, the working of the TPO deserves t be sustained………….”
17.8. 1. The DRP’s assumption was that the assessee had not put forth
any arguments with regard to Ace Software Exports and KLG Systel
Limited.
17.8.2. The assessee had identified itself as low-end engineering and
R&D work and a small markup of 7% was given for its work. However, the
TPO analyzed the selected parties and rejected for the reasons recorded
[which have been cited supra] the following companies:
(i) Onward Technologies Limited;
(ii) Pentasoft Technologies Limited;
(iii) Tata Technologies Limited 17.8.3. However, it was contention of the assessee that the TPO erred
while stating that assessee’s tech-center is engaged in providing high-end
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
61
61
research services. Tech-Center is essentially engaged in provision of
engineering design and analysis of automobile parts, assemblies and
manufacturing tools. This entails provision of computer-aided design and
data translation services. Such services involve product assembly
documentation, exterior and interior surfacing / designing, 3D modeling and
2D drawings etc.
17.8.4. It was further submitted that Tech-Center focuses mainly on
providing routine services in relation to next generation materials, designs,
manufacturing processes. Primary research and development of strategy
(including identification of projects) is done at US level.
Work is performed within Tech-Center using the standard GM
practices and processes. There are standard budgetary controls and
procedures applicable for ISL including standard process of approvals
based on cost of projects. These guidelines and procedures are common
for all GM operations around the world. These procedures are defined in
advance before executing this work from India. ISL is engaged in provision
of various support services for computer aided designing and analysis of
automobile parts for the Group’s internal requirements for provision of
engineering services. It was, further, submitted that the TPO’s assertion
that provision of CAD/CAM services is functionally comparable to provision
of high-end research service providers is misplaced. It was also pointed out
that the TPO erred in rejecting four out of six comparables selected by the
assessee on the following reasons:
(i) Different business profile;
(ii) Segmental results not available; &
(iii) Related party transactions.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
62
62
17.8.5. The TPO was inconsistent while applying filters and selecting
the final comparables. The assessee had also assailed the rejection of
companies such as (i) Onward Technologies Ltd., (ii) Pentasoft
Technologies Ltd., (iii) PSI Data Systems Ltd; & (iv) Tata Technologies
Limited and also objected to the selection of (i) Powersoft Global solutions
Limited, (ii) Rolta India Limited for the reasons we have already recorded
(supra).
17.9. We have duly considered the issue in detail. Surprisingly, the
DRP’s direction, which was bald and cryptic, had subscribed that the
functions etc of all these companies are comparable with the assessee.
Therefore, the working of the TPO deserves to be sustained. How did the
DRP come to such conclusion that the working of the TPO deserves to the
sustained was not finding a place in its direction?
17.10. In such a scenario, we have been left with no alternative, but, to
remit back the issue on the files of the TPO for fresh consideration. To
enable the TPO to the above exercise, the issue is restored with a specific
direction to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the
Act after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being
heard. In the meanwhile, the assessee, through its ARs, to furnish all the
relevant details as to why the companies quoted it should be taken as
comparables and also as to why the companies selected by the TPO
cannot be as comparables so as to enable the TPO arrive at a conclusion
as directed by us supra. It is ordered accordingly.
Gr. No.10 Non-providing the assessee the benefit of 5 per cent Gr.No.13. range as provided by the proviso of s. 92C(2) of the Act for the AYS 2006-07 & 2007-08:
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
63
63
18. Even though the assessee has consistently raised this issue
before the DRPs, neither the TPO nor DRPs have dealt with the issue.
18.1. Before us, it was pleaded that the AO/TPO be directed to
provide the benefit of 5 per cent range as provided by the proviso to s.
92C(2) of the Act.
The learned DR present was heard.
18.2. We have carefully considered the submission of both the
parties on the issue and also perused the provisions of s. 92C (2) of the
Act. For ready reference, the relevant portion of s.92C (2) is reproduced as
under:
“92C(1)…………………………………………………………………………….
(2) The most appropriate………………………………………………………….
Provided……………………………………………………………………………
Provided further that if the variation between the arm’s length price so determined
and price at which the international transaction has actually been undertaken does
not exceed five per cent of the latter, the price at which the international transaction
has actually been undertaken shall be deemed to be the arm’s length price.”
18.3. In view of the above provision of the Act, the AO/TPO is
directed to verify as to whether the variation between the ALP so
determined and the price at which the international transaction had been
undertaken is within the range of five per cent of the latter as subscribed
and, if so, the TPO is directed to adopt the price at which the international
transaction worked out as the ALP. Otherwise, the assessee’s claim is not
entertain-able. It is ordered accordingly.
Gr. No.11: Addition of Rs.4,89,60,504/- being royalty transaction for the AY 2007-08:
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
64
64
19. During the year, the assessee had paid royalty of
Rs.12,24,01,259/- as per technology license agreement to GMDAT @ 5%.
From the search of ADGAR online database for royalty agreement for
independent parties related to assemblies for automobiles. The TPO found
two agreements , one of those agreements were related to GMDAT’s, M
150 and M 200 project itself i.e., the project for which the assessee had
paid royalty to GMDAT. This agreement was exactly the same on account
of product royalty with the assessee’s product royalty agreement.
19.1. The contention of the assessee before the TPO was that it had
benchmarked its transactions with internal CUP available on similar
agreement with the third party ie., Isuzu Motors Limited, Japan to obtain
certain technical information and assistance in relation to manufacturing of
Tavera in India and as per this agreement, Isuzu charged royalty at the rate
of 5% of net selling price to the assessee for providing technical
information and assistance in this regard. It was, further, contended that
net royalty payment was approximately 0.4% of the gross selling price and,
hence, same was below 3% and should be accepted as benckmark rate.
19.2. However, the TPO rejected the contentions of the assessee on
the premise that Isuzu’s agreement is not exactly comparable with the
assessee’s agreement for royalty for M-200 project whereas agreement
between Korea Delphy Automotive Systems Corporation, Korea and
Jingzhou Hengoing Automotive Parts Company Limited, China is exactly
comparable in respect of all technical specification and for same project of
%age of royalty payment to gross selling price is not correct way of
comparing prices. Accordingly, the adjustment to royalty payment was
determined at Rs.4,89,60,504/-.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
65
65
19.3. Being aggrieved, the assessee took up the issue, among
others, before the DRP and contested the TPO’s working. As usual, the
DRP sustained the TPO’s stand with its inexplicable way that “In view of
independently comparable agreement which resembles the assessee’s
agreement for payment of royalty, the order of TPO does not merit any
interference.”
19.4. Before us, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that in
both the agreements, namely Delphi-Jinzhou agreement and Namyang-
Henglong agreement, ‘the licensed product’ is only for a single
component/parts of the vehicle and not the entire vehicle which is in
contrast to the TLA between GMDAT and GMI. According to the assessee,
the agreement between GMI and GMDAT was Automotive agreement for
manufacturing of complete vehicle, according to which, GMDAT to provide
technology to GMI in relation to manufacture, assemble and market
GMDAT’s project J200 right-hand 4 door notchback vehicles, accessories
and parts in India and other countries. The royalty rate was charged at 5
per cent of net assessable value. The agreement between the assessee
and ISUZU was if Automotive agreement for manufacturing of complete
vehicle, according to which, Isuzu is to provide certain technical information
and assistance in relation to manufacturing of the entire vehicle, 1-163
Wagon (Tavera) and components or parts thereof in India. The royalty was
agreed upon at 5 per cent of ‘net selling price’. It was, therefore, submitted
that it is clear that the royalty rate of 3 per cent paid in both Namyan-
Henglong agreement and Delphi-Jingzhou agreement relates to technology
transfer with respect to only a single component/parts of a vehicle only
whereas the TLA between GMDAT and the assessee relates to technology
transfer with respect to an entire vehicle. Moreover, it was claimed by the
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
66
66
assessee that the royalty rate of 3 per cent on selling price of the licensed
product was in addition to the initial signing payment of USD 80,000 &
1,00,000 respectively. It was, further, claimed that as per the agreement
between the assessee and GMDAT, the assessee had paid royalty at the
rate of 5 per cent of the Net assessable value in accordance with the
formula set-forth in the Government of India regulations. However, in the
agreements considered by the TPO, the base of royalty rate was computed
on net selling price of the product which will be substantially higher from
that of the assessee. It was the assertion of the assessee that the actual
royalty payment made by the assessee as a percentage of gross selling
price which was approximately at 0.54 per cent. Thus, the royalty rate of 5
per cent by the assessee to GMDAT was at arm’s length only.
Application of CUP entails stringent comparability
requirements:
19.5. Extensively quoting Rule 10B (1) of I. T. Rules and also OECD
Guidelines, it was claimed that comparability under the CUP method was
particularly dependent upon the similar products and contractual terms
among other things. Differences in geographic markets may also influence
the reliability of the comparison under this method, particular if they are
material but cannot be reliably ascertained. Therefore, it was submitted
that, application of CUP entails stringent comparability requirements
between the tested party and the comparable selected, even a minor
difference among the two may leave the whole analysis irrelevant.
In conclusion, it was submitted that there were material
differences between the third party agreements being compared by the
TPO which was only for a single component/parts of the vehicle as
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
67
67
compared to the agreement of the assessee with GMDAT which was for
the entire vehicle. Therefore, it was inappropriate on the part of the TPO to
compare the agreement between GMDAT and the assessee with
agreements between third parties.
19.6. On the other hand, the submissions of the Revenue are
summarized as under:
(a) That there was no change in tested party. The only change was the
comparable used. While the assessee had used an internal CUP whereas
the TPO had used external CUP;
(b) That the assessee had wrongly stated that the royalty rate in the
Isuzu agreement which has been adopted as CUP by the assessee at 5%.
The royalty rate was JPY 25000 per licensed vehicle or 5% whichever is
low and such a rate comes to around 1.2% of net sales value of licensed
vehicle. Since the JPY 25000 per licensed vehicle was lower of the two
figures, this constitutes the actual royalty payment and not 5% as claimed
by the assessee and hence, even by the assessee’s own CUP, the royalty
rate should have been much lower at 1.2% and not 5%;
(c) That the assessee’s claim of royalty payment at 0.54% of the gross
selling price was misleading as the assessee was wrong in presenting
royalty payment as a %age of gross selling price as such sale includes
non-licensed items also which form a substantial value out of total sale;
(d) That the transaction of payment of royalty has been benchmarked by
the assessee by using an internal CUP which has been rejected by the
TPO and he had conducted his own search to find two external CUP which
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
68
68
have been used for benchmarking the transaction of payment of royalty in
the case of the assessee;
(e) That the royalty rate referred in Isuzu agreement was not 5% but it
was Yen 25000 (Rs.l9072) per licensed vehicle subject to a ceiling of 5% of
the net sale price. At an estimated price of Rs.7.5 lakhs for a Tavera
Vehicle, the royalty percentage would be merely 1.2% and not 5% as
adopted by the assessee
19.7. Extensively quoting the agreement entered into between
GMDAT and the assessee, it was submitted that –
(a) That accordingly the assessee can only source or manufacture
licensed parts for installation in the vehicles manufactured/distributed by it.
The remaining parts will have to be sourced only from GMDAT as per the
CKD Agreement;
(b) That the Isuzu agreement does not contain any limiting clause and,
hence, it comprises of technology license to manufacture all parts of
Tavera including transmission and engine; and that such agreement cannot
be taken as a CUP for the TLA between the assessee and GMDAT which
excludes engine and transmission;
19.8 Extensively quoting the agreements between Namyang –
Henglong & Delphi - Jingzhou, it was submitted that -
(a) The agreements taken by the TPO was proper comparable for the
assessee. The nature of agreement, scope of services as well as the
payment terms of Isuzu agreement were totally different from the
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
69
69
agreement between the assessee and GMDAT and cannot be taken as
comparable.
19.9. Quoting the Isuzu royalty agreement, it was submitted that -
(a) That the Isuzu agreement is similar, the royalty rate charged in the
Isuzu case, because of the per licensed vehicle rate of Rs.9072/vehicle,
would be much lower than the rate of 5% in the case of GMDAT rate. As
computed above, if the net sale price of a Tavera vehicle is adopted at
Rs.7.5 lakhs, the royalty rate would be merely 1.2% which should have
been adopted as the CUP rate in the case of the assessee.
19.10. In conclusion, it was submitted that the TPO had rightly
selected the two comparables and had rightly rejected the GMI –Isuzu
agreement as a proper comparable.
19.11. We have carefully considered the lengthy submission made by
the assessee which has been equally refuted by the revenue by its
elaborate submission.
19.12. On considering the contentions of the rival parties, it is
observed that the tussle between the parties has been narrowed down to
the issue of comparing of the agreements. The assessee had taken the
agreement entered into between the assessee and Isuzu and treated as
CUP whereas the TPO had as CUP the agreements of (i) Namyang-
Henglong; and (ii) Delphi-Jingzhou. This has been assailed by the
assessee for the reasons narrated above. The agreement entered into by
the assessee as well as the agreements of unrelated parties referred to by
the TPO contained [terms and conditions] the nature and scope of services
involved which required to be examined. The DRP had, without involving
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
70
70
itself in analyzing the contentions put-forth by the assessee with that of the
TPO in rejecting the assessee’s comparable, sustained the TPO’s stand
without assigning any plausible reason whatsoever. Moreover the relevant
agreements which contained terms and conditions on the basis of which,
they were to be selected as comparables. Obviously, this requires
considerable verification, examination and comparison.
19.13. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that this
issue requires to be remitted back on the file of the TPO for a detailed
examination and verification of the assessee’s contentions. To facilitate
the TPO to implement the above direction, this issue is restored on the file
of the TPO to take appropriate action after affording a reasonable
opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It is ordered accordingly.
Gr.No.12: Not providing relief on account of working capital adjustment to reflect the differing levels of trade receivables, trade payables and inventories (working capital adjustments) between the assessee and the potential comparables [AY 2007-08]:
20. Both the parties were heard. Since the issue is factual
which requires verification at the AO/TPO’s level as agreed by both the
parties, this issue is remitted back to the file of the AO/TPO with a direction
to examine the veracity of the assessee’s claim and to take appropriate
decision in correctly computing the working capital adjustment, if it so
warrants. It is ordered accordingly.
http://transfer-pricing.in
ITA No.3096/Ahd/2010 (AY- 2006-07)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra
ITA No.3308/Ahd/2011 (AY- 2007-08)
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Pandhmahal Circle, Godhra
71
71
21. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the
assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are partly allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in open Court on 02-08-2013
Sd/- Sd/-
(G. C. GUPTA)
VICE PRESIDENT (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Lakshmikanta Deka/Lakshmikanta Deka/Lakshmikanta Deka/Lakshmikanta Deka/----
Copy of the order is forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT concerned 4. The CIT(A) concerned
5. The DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard File BY ORDER Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation: direct on computer 23-07-13/01-08-13 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member: 01-08-13 other Member: 3. Date on which approved draft comes to the Sr. P. S./P.S.: 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement: 5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S.: 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk: 7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk: 8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order: 9. Date of Despatch of the Order:
http://transfer-pricing.in