Facts of the Case

The assessee was engaged in facilitating import and export activities for domestic and overseas customers through two distinct business segments:

  1. Commission/Indenting Business
  2. Trading Business

For Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee reported income of ₹19.43 crores.

The matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of Arm’s Length Price concerning international transactions.

The TPO rejected the assessee’s transfer pricing methodology and made an adjustment of ₹88.40 crores.

The assessee had adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), clubbing both business segments for benchmarking purposes, which had been accepted in earlier assessment years.

However, the TPO rejected this and benchmarked the commission segment using profit margins from trading transactions with non-AEs.

The Assessing Officer accepted the TPO’s findings.

The assessee challenged the adjustment before ITAT, which held that trading and indenting segments were functionally different and therefore incomparable.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the TPO was justified in rejecting the TNMM adopted by the assessee.
  2. Whether trading transactions and indenting/commission transactions could be treated as comparable for transfer pricing benchmarking.
  3. Whether ALP for commission transactions with AEs should be determined by comparing commission earned from non-AE transactions in the same segment.
  4. Whether Rule 10B mandates functional comparability in segment-wise benchmarking.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)

The Revenue argued that:

  • The ITAT erred in interfering with the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO.
  • The “Berry Ratio” suggested by the assessee was not recognized under Indian transfer pricing law.
  • TNMM application remained debatable since similar issues for previous years were pending consideration before the High Court.
  • The TPO was justified in determining ALP based on internal comparables available from the assessee’s trading segment.

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)

The assessee contended that:

  • The Revenue had consistently accepted TNMM in earlier years.
  • Clubbing of transactions had been accepted in preceding assessment years.
  • Trading and indenting activities are functionally distinct and carry different risks and assets.
  • Comparing trading margins with commission income was legally incorrect.
  • Internal comparables from non-AE commission transactions should be the benchmark for determining ALP.

Court Findings / Observations

The Delhi High Court observed:

  • The ITAT correctly identified a defect in the TPO’s methodology.
  • Trading and commission segments are distinct and cannot be treated as comparable.
  • Functional comparability is central to transfer pricing analysis.
  • The ALP determination must follow Rule 10B principles.
  • The Assessing Officer must compare commission income earned from non-AE transactions within the same segment for benchmarking AE transactions.

The Court upheld the ITAT’s reasoning on segmental benchmarking.

Court Order

The appeal was disposed of with directions:

  • The Assessing Officer/TPO was directed to determine the commission rate earned on FOB value from non-AE transactions in the indenting segment.
  • The same rate was to be applied for determining ALP of AE transactions in the indenting segment.
  • The exercise must be carried out strictly in accordance with Rule 10B.

The High Court clarified that it was not disturbing the Tribunal’s direction regarding determination of commission rates.

Important Clarification

This judgment clarifies that:

  • Segmental comparability is mandatory where business functions differ.
  • Transfer pricing benchmarking cannot mix functionally dissimilar transactions.
  • Internal comparables within the same business segment have greater reliability.
  • Rule 10B requires strict functional, asset, and risk analysis before determining ALP.

This ruling strengthens the principle that benchmarking must preserve commercial and functional integrity of each business segment.

Sections Involved

  • Section 92C – Computation of Arm’s Length Price
  • Section 92CA – Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer
  • Section 260A – Appeal to High Court
  • Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Determination of ALP
  • Transfer Pricing Provisions relating to International Transactions

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2015:DHC:4035-DB/RKG05052015ITA832015.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.