G.S.CALTEX INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 228/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6812 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANT KUMAR; POOJA SWARUP
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; International transaction; Wholly owned subsidiary; Arm length price
• Section: 92C; 143(3); 92

Judgement Text

K IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.228/ MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12) M/S. G.S CALTEX INDIA P. LTD. 215, ALTRIUM, CWING, UNIT NO. 816/817, 8 TH FLOOR, CHAKALA, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI - 400059 / V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 ./ PAN : AADCG6605R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI. AJAY R. SINGH REVENUE BY : SHRI JAYANT KUMAR, CIT - DR & MS. POOJA SWARUP / DATE OF HEARING : 09.03.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.06 .2018 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL , FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING ITA NO. 228/MUM/2016 , IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2 3.12 .2015 PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 WHICH IS PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO D IRECTIONS DATED 27.10.2015 ISSUED BY DISPUTES RE SOLUTION PANEL - 1, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE DRP) U/S 144C(5) OF THE 1961 ACT , THE PROCEEDINGS HAD ARISEN BEFORE DRP FROM DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 06 - 02 - 2015 PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S 143(3) R.W.S . 144C(1) OF THE 1961 ACT FOR AY 2011 - 12 WHICH WAS ISSUED IN PURSUANCE TO ORDER PASSED BY TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, 2(1)(1),MUMBAI DATED 30 - 01 - 2015 U/S 92CA(3) OF THE 1961 PROPOSING TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT TO ARMS LENGTH PRICE ON ACCOUNT OF INTERNATIO NAL TRANSACTION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,59,99,908/ - . I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE LEARNED DRP ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO IN SELECTING THE TNMM METHOD AND REJECTED THE COST PLUS METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A NEW COMPANY AND IT'S THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS OPERATION, THEREFORE COST PLUS ME THOD WAS RIGHTLY APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT COMPARATIVE INVOICES AVAILABLE TO ESTABLISH THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. THOUGH THE CUSTOMERS WERE SPREAD AT A DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICAL DISTANCE, THE ASSESSEE DERIVED THE RATE FOR COMPARISON AT THE PORT O F ORIGIN AFTER EXCLUDING FREIGHT EXPENSES AND PACKING COSTS. (2) THE LEARNED DRP ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO IN SELECTING THE COMPANIES FOR COMPARABLE ANALYSIS UNDER TNMM METHOD WHICH WERE BRANDED AND ESTABLISHED OLD COMPANIES HAVING EXISTENCE IN INDIAN MARKET OVER A PERIOD 28 YEARS AND 50 YEARS DEALING IN VARIETY OF PRODUCT RANGES, THEREFORE THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO ARE TO BE REJECTED AND THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE OF RS 8,59,99,908 / - BE DELETED. (3) THE LEARNED DRP ERRED IN D IRECTING THE AO TO CALCULATE THE AVERAGE OP/TC OF THE SELECTED COMPANY AS A WHOLE INSTEAD OF CALCULATING THE OP/TC OF ONLY LUBRICANT SEGMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SELECTED FINANCIALS OF GS CALTEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED SINCE GSIPL IS ONLY INTO LUBR ICANT BUSINESS. (4) THE LEARNED DRP HAS IGNORED THE FACTS THAT THE SELECTED COMPANIES ARE NOT ONLY DEALING WITH LUBRICANT OIL BUT ALSO INTO OTHER DIVERSIFIED BUSINESS; FOR EXAMPLE - SAH PETROLEUM IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSFORMER OIL, WHITE OIL, PROCESS OI L ETC AND GULF OIL IS IN THE BUSINESS OF INDUSTRIAL EXPLOSIVE AND DETONATORS, MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE ETC WHICH OBIVIOUS FROM THE FINANCIAL OF THOSE COMPANIES, THUS THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE OF RS 8,59,99,908 / - ON BASIS OF THE ABOVE TWO COMPA RABLES CANNOT BE SUSTAIN. (5) THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS . 3 . THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PROCURING/IMPORTING LUBRICANTS IN BULK FROM ITS PARENT COMPANY G.S.CALTEX CORPORATION, SOUTH KOREA WHICH HOLDS 100% SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SEL LING IN INDIA TO ITS CUSTOMERS AFTER REPACKING IN SMALL PACKS OF 910 ML TO 210 LTRS . T HE ASSESSE E S INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION S WITH ITS A E S WAS REFERRED BY AO TO TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) U/S. 92C A (1) OF THE ACT. THE TPO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE IS REPACKING IN SMALL PACKET S OF LUBRICATING OILS OF 910 ML. T O 210 LTRS. MANUFACTURED FROM THE LUBRICATING OIL IMPORTED FROM ITS AE IN BULK P A C KS/FLEXI PACKS OF 20,000 LTRS. WHICH ARE THEN SOLD TO CUSTOMER IN INDIA N I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 3 MARKET IN SMALL PACKS . THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION S REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY IS AS UNDER: - SR.NO NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION QUANTITY TOTAL CIF VALUE (IN . RS.) 1. LUBRICANTS IN FLEXI BAGS - PURCHASES - ROYALTY - INTEREST 3 880298 LTRS 18,92,59,403/ - 2,10,848/ - 3,38,439/ - TOTAL 18,98,09,690/ - THE TPO OBSERVED FROM THE TP STUDY REPORT THAT THE AE IS MANUFACTURER OF BASE OIL WHICH ASSUMES LESS THAN MARKET RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS BECAUSE THE BASIC RAW MATERIAL BEING BASE OIL IS MANUFACTURED BY I TS AE WHICH IS USED FOR MANU FACTURING LUBRICATING OIL WHICH B RING DOWN ITS COST OF PRODUCTION. S ECONDLY , THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THE AE GOT TH E ASSURANCE OF SELLING LUBRICATING OIL IN INDIA N MARKET AND AROUND THE WORLD THROUGH ITS SUBSIDIARIES/ASSOCIATED COMPANIES , THUS HAVING ASSUR ED ACCESS TO HUGE MARKET . THUS IT WAS OBSERVED BY TPO THAT AE OF THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURES MASS PRODUCTION OF LUBRICATING OIL WHICH HAS HELP ED IN REDUCING COST OF PRODUCTION OF OIL. THIRDLY, THE AE IS HAVING FULL AUTOMATIC PLAN T OF MANUFACTURING LUBRICATIN G OIL WHICH HELP IN REDUCING COST OF PRODUCTION OF AE. THE TPO OBSERVED THAT I N TP STUDY REPORT, THE AE WA S SELECTED AS A TESTED PARTY TO DETERMINE THE A RMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION S ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE BY ADOPTING COST PLUS METHOD WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE PREFERRED METHOD FOR DETERMINING/COMPUTING ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASE S ITS RAW MATERIAL LIKE FINISH ED LUBRICATING OIL FROM ITS AE WHICH IS ALSO SUPPLIED BY ITS AE TO OTHER CUSTOMER S IN SOUTH EAST ASIAN COUNTRIES SUCH AS BANGLADESH, CHINA, JAPAN ETC. . THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE CLAIMING TO USE COST PLUS METHOD FOR COMPUTING ALP HAS COMPARED THE PRICES CHARGED BY ITS AE TO CUSTOMERS IN THESE COUNTRIES. THE TPO OBSERVED THAT T HE AE HAS GIVEN VOLUME DISCOUNT TO ASSESSEE VIS - A - VIS OTHER BUYERS IN CHINA, JAPAN , BANGLADESH ETC. BECAUSE ASSESSEE IS THE SOLE DISTRIBUTORS IN INDIA. THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE ADOPTING COST PLUS METHOD AS THE MOST APP ROPRIATE METHOD TO COM PUTE ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF IMPORT I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 4 OF F INISH ED LUBRICAT ING OIL HAS COMPARED PRICES OF FINISH ED PRODUCT SUPPLIED BY ITS AE TO OTHER BUYERS IN SOUTH EAST ASIAN REGION I.E. NEPAL, BANGLADESH, CHINA ETC. AND ASSESSEE HAS COMPARED PRICES AFTER MAK ING ADJUSTMENTS IN FREIGHT , PACKING MATERIAL ETC. AS UNDER: - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN THE PRODUCTS SUPPUED TO GSIPL AND OTHER THAN GAIPL ITEMS NO COMPARAB LE ITEMS SOLD TO COUNTRY NAME PACKAGE CIF N/S PRICE, S/PACK GE FQBBUS AN PRICE, S/PACKA GE PACKAGE COSI. KFTW ( USD/1120) CONVERTED FOB W/O PACKAGE, S/L LATEST INVOICE /ORDERS VOLUME TAKEN SO FAR REMARKS 35 TO WHY PRICES TO INDIA ARE REASONABLE AND AT ARM'S LENGTH I INDIA KI XX DYNAMIC CH - 4 15W/40 FLAN - TANK, L 1.17 1.11 670,000 1.08 JUL.2010 440000 QUANTITY BOUGHT BY US ATE LARGER AND IN BULK WHERE AS OTHER COUNTRY VOLUMES ARE VERY LOW. ALSO WE HAVE TO KEEP M MIND THAT OTHER THAN PACKING COST, MARGINS ARE HIG HER IN SMALLER PACKS FOR ALL THE PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET. L NEPAL KI XDYNAMLCCG - 4 15W/40 3/6 L BOX 28.17 2S.76 4,000 1.23 JAN. 2010 3450 I GHANA KIW DYNAMIC CH - 4 15W/40 2001. DRUM 280.76 257.20 30,000 1.15 MAR. 2010 5000 2 INDIA KIN* DYNAMIC CF - 4 20W/40 FLEIG - TANK, L 1.12 1.07 670.000 1.04 JUL.2010 360000 QUANTITY BOUGHT BY US ARE LARGER AND IN BULK WHERE AS OTHER COUNTRY VOLUMES ARE VERY LOW. IN FACT GHANA IS SUPPLIED THIS PRODUCT CHEAPER 2 NEPAL KIXX DYNAMIC CF - 4 1SW/40 4/4 L BOX 28.01 27.79 4,000 1.51 JUN 2010 4250 2 CHINA HHIC ENGOIL 15W/40 CF - 4 (2) 20L PAIL 28.40 28.02 3,700 1.24 JUL.2010 25000 3 NDIA KIWGOLDSGZOW/SO FLEA - TANK, L 1.17 1.10 670,000 1.08 JUL.2010 80000 QUANTITY BOUGHT BY US A RE LARGER AND IN BULK WHERE AS OTHER COUNTRY 3 NEPAL KIXXGOLDSF/CF20W/50 4/4 L BOX 26.69 26.48 4,000 1.43 JUN. 2010 44560 4 INDIA <3S ULTRA 4T5L20W/40 FLEN - TAOK, L 1.18 1.11 670,000 1.09 JUL.2010 80000 QUANTITY BOUGHT BY US ATELAIGERAND IN BULK WHERE AS OTHER COUNTRY 4 NEPAL GS ULTRA IT 15W/40 I2/1L3OX 19.40 19.25 5,000 1.23 JUN. 2010 22440 5 INDIA GS HYDRO 68 FLEXI - TANK, L 0.91 0.87 670,000 0.84 MAR. 20 10 120000 QUANTITY BOUGHT BY US A RE LARGER AND IN BULK WHERE AS OTHER COUNTRY VOLUMES ARE VERY LOW. ALSO THE SUPPLIES TO CHINA IS DONE BY KOREAN LOCAL DISTRIBUTORS AFTER KEEPI NG THEIR OWN MARGINS 5 CHINA DICC HYDRAULIC 01L46(1) FIELD - TANK, L 1.08 1.07 670,000 1.04 JUL.2010 60000 S CHINA HHICHYOOIL46(2) 200L DRUM 2S1.50 248.10 30,000 1.11 JUL. 2010 38000 6 INDIA NEW GOLDEN PPARL 3 180KG DRUM 31600 300. SO 30,100 1.5 2 JUL 2010 103BB 9 QUANTITY BOUGHT BY ARE MUCH LARGER THAN OTHER COUNTRIES AND ALSO GREASE BOUGHT BY GHANA IS EP 2 GREASE NOT NLGI3. 6 NEPAL NEWGOLDENPEARL3 24/0.5KGB OX 33 - 47 30.60 12,400 1.63 JAN. 2010 1350 I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 5 THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONTENDING THAT THE PRICES PAID BY IT TO ITS AE IS AT ALP KEEPING IN VIEW PRICE CHARGED BY ITS AE TO CUSTOMERS IN OTHER COUNTRIES AND KEEPING IN VIEW NORMAL RANGE OF +/ - 5%. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT IT GOT BETTER PRICE THAN THE PRICE CHARGED BY ITS AE TO CUSTOMERS IN OTHER MARKETS . THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE CLAIMING TO USE COST PLUS METHOD FOR COMPUTING ALP HAS COMPARED THE PRICES CHARGED BY ITS AE TO CUSTOME RS IN THESE COUNTRIES AND IN - FACT THE ASSESSEE USED COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICES(CUP) AS THE ME THOD OF BENCHMARKING TO COMPUTE ALP AND NOT THE COST PLUS METHOD AS STATED IN ITS TP STUDY REPORT. THE TPO OBSERVED THAT CUP METHOD REQUIRES CLOSE COMPARABILIT Y. THE CUP METHOD IS TO BE APPLIED WHEN ASSESSEE AND THE AE ARE LOCATED IN SAME GEOGRAPHY AND COMPARABLE SHOULD MATCH IN QUANTITY AND QUALITY . FURTHER AS PER TPO , CUP METHOD IS SUITABLE WHEN TIME PERIOD OF TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE SAME WHILE IN THE INSTANT CASE TIME PERIOD OF TRANSACTION OF AE WITH CUSTOMERS IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS NOT KNOWN . THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES AE HAS SOLD DIFFERENT PRODUCTS WITH DIFFERENT DESCRIPTION/TECHNICALITIES IN DIFFERENT MARKETS AND HENCE THEY ARE NOT STRICTLY COMPA RA BLES WITH THE PRODUCTS SUPPLIED BY AE TO THE ASSESSEE . S ECONDLY DIFFERENT SCALES(VOLUME) OF SUPPLIES WERE MADE IN DIFFERENT MARKETS AND HENCE COMPARISON CANNOT BE MADE BETWEEN THESE MARKETS WHO HAVE DIFFERENT SCALES OF CONSUMPTIONS . THIRDLY, THERE ARE DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIES WHICH ARE NOT STRICTLY COMPARABLE . THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INFACT FOLLOWING CUP (COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE) METHOD WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS DESCRIBING THE SAME TO BE COST PLUS METHOD IN ITS TP STUDY. THE TPO OBSERVED TH AT THE CUP METHOD IS NOT THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES . THE TPO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI - TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD. V. DCIT (2010) 35 SOT 406 (MUM), WHICH LED HIM TO REJECT CUP METHOD AND ADOPT TNM M METHOD CONSIDERING THE SAME TO THE MOST SUITABLE METHOD FOR COMPUTING ARMS LENGTH PRICE UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THE TNM M METHOD TEST S THE ARMS LENGTH CHARACTER OF TRANSFER PRICES IN THE CONTROLLED TRANSACTION S BY COMPARING THE OPERATIVE PROFIT EARNED BY THE TESTED PARTY IN THE CONTROL LED TRANSACTIONS UNDER EXAMINATION TO OPERATING PROFIT EARNED BY TESTED PARTIES IN ITS SIMILAR TRANSACTION WITH UNCONTROLLED PARTIES. THUS THE TNM M MEASURES THE TOTAL RETURNS D E RIVED FROM CONTROLLED TAX PAYE RS MOST NARROWLY DEFINED BUSINESS ACTIVITY FOR WHICH RELIABLE DATE INCORPORATING THE I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 6 CONT ROLLED TRANSACTION UNDER REVIEW IS AVAILABLE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE TPO THAT THE STRENGTH OF THE TNM M IS THAT NET MARGINS ARE LESS AFFECTED BY THE TRANSACTIONAL DIF FERENCE. THE TPO ADOPTED TNMM METHOD TO BE USED AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED BY TPO AND THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFY COST PLUS METHOD AS ADOPTED IN ITS TP STUDY REPORT. THE TPO SELECTED THREE COMPARABLES BASE D ON SEARCH OF CAPITA LINE DATA BA SES WHICH LED HIM TO SHORTLIST THREE COMPARABLES NAMELY AS UNDER: - I. CASTROL INDIA LTD. II. GULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED III. SAH PETROLEUM LTD. THE COMPARABLE CASTROL INDIA LTD. ITSELF WAS DROP PED BY TPO AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY /OBJ E C TIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY TWO COMPARABLES WERE SHORTLISTED NAMELY SAH PETROLEUM LTD. AND GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND THE P ROF IT LEVEL I NDICATOR (PLI) OF THE TWO COMPANIES ARE DETAILED AS HEREUNDER: - THE WORKING OF ASSESSEE'S PLI BEING OP/TC IS AS UNDER: - SAH PETROLEUM LTD (IN RS.) GULF OIL CORP ORATION LIMITED (IN RS.) SALES 373,34,29,331 901,27,13,000 COST 349,05,50, 116 868,85, 00,000 ADVANCES & DEPOSITS 2,07,12392 TOTAL COST 351,12,62,508 OPERATING PROFIT 22,21,66,823 32,42,00,000 OP/TC 6.32% 3.73% ... AVERAGE 5.02% I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 7 THE AVERAGE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLE IS 5.02% WHILE THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ( - ) 18.97%. HENCE THE TRANSACTION WA S NOT CONSIDERED TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH AND THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE WA S DETERMINED AS UNDER BY THE TPO : - (IN RS.) THE AVERAGE OP / TC WAS 5.02% OF THESE TWO COMPARABLE ENTITIES , WHILE OP / TC OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ( - ) 18.97% WHICH LED TO THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 8,59,99,908/ - TOWARDS TP ADJUSTMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND ADJUSTMENTS WAS PROPOSED BY TPO TO ALP VIDE ORDERS DATED 30.01.2015 PASSED U/S. 92CA(3 ) OF THE ACT. THE SAID TPO ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 LED TO THE FRAMING OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 06.02.2015 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH LED TO THE ADDITION S IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE ADJ USTMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS AE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,59,99,908/ - . SALES (IN RS.) 29,04,65, 103 C OST (IN RS.) 35,84,69,826 LOSS (IN RS.) (35, 84,69 , 826) OP/TC - 18.97% 1 TOTAL SALES OF THE ASSESSEE (IN RS.) 29,04,65,103 2 C OST (IN RS.) 35,84.69,826 3 LOSS (IN RS.) (6,80,04.723) 4 OP/TC (3/1) - 18.97% 5 AVERAGE MARKUP OF COMPARABLES 5.02% 6 ARM'S LENGTH VALUE (2X5) (IN RS.) 1,79,95,185 7 ADJUSTMENT (6 - 1) (IN RS.) 8,59,99,90 8 I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 8 5. T HE ASSE SSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 06 - 02 - 2015 PASSED BY THE AO FILED OBJECTIONS WITH THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PA NE L - 1 , MUMBAI OBJECTING TO THE SELECTION OF TNM METHOD FOR COMPUTING ALP AND ALSO OBJECTING TO THE SELECTION OF THE COMPARABLES WHICH FOUND MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DRP , WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 'THE LEARNED TPO HAS ERRED IN SELECTING THE TNMM METHOD AND REJECTED THE COST PLUS METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A NEW COMPANY AND IT'S THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS OPERATION, THEREFORE COST PLUS METHOD WAS RIGHTLY APP LIED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT COMPARATIVE INVOICES AVAILABLE TO ESTABLISH THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. THOUGH THE CUSTOMERS WERE SPREAD AT A DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICAL DISTANCE, THE ASSESSEE DERIVED THE RATE FOR COMPARISON AT THE PORT OF ORIGIN AFTER EXCLU DING FREIGHT EXPENSES AND PACKING COSTS. THE LEARNED TPO ERRED IN SELECTING THE COMPANIES FOR COMPARABLE ANALYSIS UNDER TNMM METHOD WHICH WERE BRANDED AND ESTABLISHED OLD COMPANIES HAVING EXISTENCE IN INDIAN MARKET OVER A PERIOD 28 YEARS AND 50 YEARS DEALING IN VARIETY OF PRODUCT RANGES, THEREFORE THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO ARE TO BE REJECTED AND THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE OF RS 8,59,99,908 / - BE DELETED. THE LEARNED TPO HAS ERRED IN CALCULATING THE AVERAGE OP/TC OF THE SELECTED COMPA NY AS A WHOLE INSTEAD OF CALCULATING THE OP/TC OF ONLY LUBRICANT SEGMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SELECTED COMPANIES ARE ALSO INTO OTHER DIVERSIFIED BUSINESS. HENCE THE COMPANY SELECTED AND DATA AVAILABLE WERE NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE AUDITED FINANCIAL OF GS CALTEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED SINCE GSIPL IS ONLY INTO LUBRICANT BUSINESS. THAT THE LEARNED TPO HAS IGNORED THE FACTS THAT THE SELECTED COMPANIES ARE ALSO INTO OTHER DIVERSIFIED BUSINESS FOR EXAMPLE - SA H PETROLEUM IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSFORMER O IL, WHITE OIL, PROCESS OIL ETC AND GULF OIL IS IN THE BUSINESS OF INDUSTRIAL EXPLOSIVE AND DETONATORS, MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE ETC THUS THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJ USTMENT MADE OF RS.8,59,99,908/ - ON BASIS OF THE ABOVE TWO COMPARABLES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED' T HE ASSESSEE MAIN CONTENTIONS BEFORE DRP ARE REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: - 2.8 IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DRP, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE'S COMPARISON WITH SAH PETROLEUM LTD AND GULF OIL CORPORATION IS ALSO TO BE RULED OUT EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF LUBRICATING OIL. THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS IS THAT SAH PETROLEUM LTD IS 28 YEARS OLD AND GULF OIL CORPORATION IS 50 YEARS OLD COMPANY WITH A CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS OF RS.46 CRS AND RS.518 CRS. RESPECTIVELY. BO TH THE COMPANIES ARE HAVING ITS OWN I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 9 BLENDING PLANT AND HAVING MASS PRODUCTION OF LUBRICATING OIL AND GREASES. THEIR TOTAL SALES VOLUME OF LUBRICATING OIL IS 63236 KL AND 52767 KL PER ANNUM RESPECTIVELY. ITS PRODUCTS ARE BEING SOLD ON THE BRAND NAME OF IPOL AND GULF, HENCE EASILY SALEABLE PRODUCT IN THE MARKET. IT HAS MARKET SHARE OF AT LEAST 2% OF THE LUBRICATING OIL MARKET IN INDIA. THEIR SPENDING ON MEDIA AND MARKETING IS VERY HIGH DUE TO WHICH THEIR PRODUCTS KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC AND CAN BE SELL EASILY IN THE MARKET. SAH PETROLEUM IS BASICALLY INTO TRADING OF WHITE OIL BUSINESS AND CATERS TO THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY; THEIR VOLUME IS ALSO HUGE COMPARED TO GSLPL. 2.9 ON THE OTHER HAND, GSIPL IS A NEW COMPANY WITH A ONE YEAR OF ITS EXISTENCE. IT DOESN'T NOT HAVE OWN MANUFACTURING PLANT AND PAYS THE PROCESSING FEES OF FIXED AMOUNT TO THE JOB WORKER UP TO 600 KL OF PRODUCTION. HENCE THE COST OF PRODUCTION GOES UP BECAUSE OF LESS PRODUCTION DURING 1 ST YEAR OF OPERATION. SALES VOLUME IS JUST 2378 KL P.A. I.E. AV ERAGE 200 KL MONTH, HENCE FIXED PROCESSING CHARGES HAVE EATEN AWAY AND IMPACTED THE GROSS MARGIN WHICH INDIRECTLY AFFECTED OP/OC BEFORE DEPRECIATION ON COST. ITS ESTABLISHMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE AND SELLING COSTS ARE ALSO HIGH BECAUSE OF NEW ADMISSIONS OF EM PLOYEES, BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES ETC. WHICH DIRECTLY IMPACT THE BOTTOM LINE OF THE COMPANY. SAH PETROLEUM AND GULF OIL HAVING OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF WHITE OIL TRADING APART FROM LUBRICATING OIL WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUSINESS PROMOTION OR MARKETING SPEND AS THESE PRODUCTS ARE DIRECTLY SOLD TO THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS. HENCE, PERCENTAGE OF MARKETING EXPENSES TO SALES IS VERY LOW COMPARED TO GSIPL. ALL THESE FACTORS ARE PLAYING VERY VITAL ROLE IN GSIPL BECAUSE OF A NEW COMPANY IN COMPARISO N TO OLD ESTABLISHED ABOVE NAMED COMPANIES. 2.10 COMPARING THE ABOVE TWO COMPANIES WITH GSIPL IS UNJUSTIFIABLE DUE TO THE YEARS OF EXISTENCE, PLANT CAPACITY OF PRODUCTION, VOLUME OF SALES, PRODUCT RANGE, BRAND NAME OF THE COMPANY IN THE MARKET, SPENDS ON M EDIA AND MARKETING ETC ARE FACTORS WHICH HIT THE COMPANY'S OPERATING MARGIN. 2.11 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE TPO IS UNJUSTIFIED. THUS, IN NUT - SHELL THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE D RP THAT TP ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE TP O ARE UNJUSTIFIED AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW . T HE DRP CONSIDERED THE OBJECTION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE SAME BY ISSUING DIRECTIONS DATED 27.10.2015 U/S. 144C (5) OF THE ACT AS UNDER: - 2.12 DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE ACTION OF THE TPO OF SELECTING THE TNMM METHOD AND REJECTING THE COST PLUS METHOD TO BE IN ORDER SINCE THE COST OF THE PRODUCT IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE INDIAN GEO GRAPHY AND MARKET AND, MORE PARTICULARLY AT THE ASEESEE'S PREMISE/GATE FOR COMPARISON I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 10 PURPOSE. THE SAME IS APPLICABLE ALSO FOR THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT NO DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR CUP AND RPM AND THE ONLY METH OD LEFT IS TNMM. THE TPO HAS, THEREFORE, CORRECTLY CHOSEN THE TNMM FOR BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TPO HAS ALSO GIVEN DETAILED REASONS FOR REJECTING THE METHOD EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH WHICH WE AGREE. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT THE PRICES CHARGED TO OTHER CUSTOMERS BY AE AND USED AS CUP CANNOT BE SO REGARDED SINCE THE OTHER CUSTOMERS ARE NOT INDEPENDENT CUSTOMERS BUT THEY ARE ALSO OTHER AES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE GRO UP. 2.13 AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TPO HAS SELECTED COMPANIES WHICH WERE BRANDED, OLD AND ESTABLISHED COMPANIES DEALING IN VARIETY OF PRODUCTS AND, HENCE, THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO SHOULD BE REJECTED, WE ARE OF THE OPINIO N THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A NEW COMPANY, THE CALTEX BRAND IS A KNOWN AND ESTABLISHED BRAND IN THE FIELD OF LUBRICANTS IN INDIA AND HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. HENCE, THE PRODUCT IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DEALING IS AN E STABLISHED PRODUCT IN THE IND IAN MARKET HAVING A BRAND VALUE AND VISIBILITY. CALTEX BRAND IS ALSO KNOWN WORLDWIDE. THEREFORE, THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NEW COMPANY AS COMPARED TO THE COMPARABLES WILL HAVE NO MATERIAL IMPACT AS FAR AS THE COMPARABILIT Y IS CONCERNED SINCE THE CUSTOMERS WOULD BE BUYING A BRAND RATHER THAN BEING SWAYED BY THE COMPANY WHICH IS SELLING THE BRAND. THIS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, NOT TENABLE. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 2.14 AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE TPO HAS ERRED IN CALCULATING THE AVERAGE OP/TC OF THE SELECTED COMPANY AS A WHOLE INSTEAD OF DOING SO OF ONLY THE LUBRICANT SEGMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE COMPARABLES ARE INTO OTHER DIVERSIFIED BUSINESS THUS RENDERING THE DATA AVAILABLE AS NOT COMPARABLE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MAJOR AND SUBSTANTIAL SEGMENT IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPARABLES ARE ENGAGED IS LUBRICANT OIL. IN TNMM, IT IS THE BROAD COMPARABILITY WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SEEN. IN ANY CASE, IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING , THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO GET THE SEGMENTAL DATA OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR CALCULATION OF AVERAGE OPERATING MARGIN OF LUBRICANT DIVISION. THE ASSESSEE HAS, HOWEVER, INFORMED THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANIES, IT IS NOTICE D THAT NO SEGMENTAL REPORTING WAS AVAILABLE IN THE CASE OF SAH PETROLEUM LTD WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD, THE SEGMENTAL REPORTING DOES NOT REVEAL A TRUE PICTURE OF THE SEGMENT SINCE THE DATA REFLECTED IS INCLUSIVE OF ALL INCOME AND EXPE NSES. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THE EXTENT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPARABLES IN SEGMENTS OTHER THAN LUBRICANT OIL. THE ASSESSEE HAS, THEREFORE, NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES W ERE ENGAGED IN ANY OTHER SEGMENT ON A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS. THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASONS. 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE EFFECT TO THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C (13) OF THE I.T ACT, 1961. I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 11 THUS IN NUTSHELL DRP CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS AS WERE MADE BY THE TPO TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,59,99,908/ - BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ALP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS AE . T HE DIRECTIONS ISSUE D BY DRP DATED 27.10.2015 LED TO THE P ASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2 3.12.2015 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) OF THE 1961 ACT. 6. STILL A GGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO THE TWO COM PARABLES SELECTED BY TPO NAMELY GULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND SAH PETROLEUM LTD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS OF ASSESS EE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE IS 100% SUBSIDIARY OF G.S CALTEX CORPORATION , SOUTH KOREAN . THE ASSESSEE IMPORTS LUBRICATING OILS FROM PARENT COMPANY IN BARREL OF 20,000 LTRS WHICH WERE CONVERTED IN SMALL POUCHES OF 910 ML. TO 210 LTRS. AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ORIGINALLY THERE WERE THREE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO NAMELY, CASTROL INDIA LTD. , GULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED , SAH PETROLEUM LTD. . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFERED ANY COMPARABLES AND ASSESSEE APPLIED COST PLUS METHOD TO COMP UTE ALP . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CASTROL INDIA WAS NOT FINALLY TAKEN AS COMPARABLES BY TPO . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT I S FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SAH PETROLEUM LIMITED IS 28 YEARS OLD COMPANY WHILE GULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED IS MORE THAN 50 YEARS OLD COMPANY . O UR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE NO. 57 TO 123 / PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF SAH PETROLEUM LTD. IS PLAC ED AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SAH PETROLEUM LIMITED IS A LEADING MANUFAC TURER OF LUBRICATING OIL . I T WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AUDITED BALANCE S HEET OF GULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED IS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 125 TO 212 . I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE COMPANIES HAVE VARIOUS SEGMENTS AND LUBRICATING OILS IS ONE OF THE SEGMENTS I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT TPO ERRED IN TAKING THE OVERALL PROFITS OF THESE COMPANIES FOR MAKING COMPARISON . I T WAS S UBMITTED THAT THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THERE WERE CERTAIN EXTRA ORDINARY EXPENSES WHICH WERE INCURRED SUCH AS INFRASTRUCTURE COST, COSTS INCURRED FOR HIRING NEW EMPLOYEES ETC. . OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT V . PENTAI R WATER INDIA P. LTD. (2016) 281 ITR 216 (BOM . ). I T WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO/DRP I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 12 REJECTED THE COST PLUS METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TNM M WAS ADOPTED . O UR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE NO. 223 TO 225 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO REFL ECT THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE , NO ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE BY TPO TO COMPUTE ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS AE . T HE SAID ORDER IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 223 TO 225 OF THE PAPER BOOK. TH E LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN FAR ANALYSES OF THE ASSESSEE IS PLACED . I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEEM ED MANUFACTURER AND IT IS ONLY DOING REPACKING OF LUBRICATING OIL FROM BULK LUBRICATING OIL IMPORTED FROM PARENT COMPANY . O UR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN BY LEARNED DR TO PAGE NO. 54 OF THE PAPER BOOK . I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED COST PLUS METHOD WHICH WAS IN FACT CUP METHOD AND INTERNAL CUP WAS ADOPTED TO MAKE COMPARISONS TO C OMPUTE ALP. I T WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE SALE PRICE BY AE TO INDIA AND ALSO SALE PRICE OF AE TO OTHER COUNTRIES SUCH AS NEPAL, CHINA, BANGLADESH ETC. . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INTERNAL CUP WAS REJECTED BY THE TPO . OUR ATTENTIO N WAS DRAWN TO PAGE NO. 70 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF AE WITH ITS CUSTOMERS IN DIFFERENT MARKETS IS PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF CHART(SAID CHART IS REPRODUCED IN THIS ORDER ALSO IN PRECEDING PARA) .R ELIANCE WERE ALSO PLACED ON TH E MUMBAI - TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD. V. DCIT (2010) 130 TTJ 556 (MUM) . O UR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF MUMBAI - TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF WELSPUN ZUCCHI TEXTILES LTD. V. ACIT IN ITA NO. 6539/MUM/2009 , VIDE ORDER DATED 11.01.2013, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE AE IS PARENT COMPANY WHICH SUPPLIED TO DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICAL MARKET AND HENCE THE CUP METHOD WAS REJECTED AND TNM M WAS APPLIED BY TPO/AO WHICH WAS UPHELD BY DRP . T HE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER CAN BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF TPO FOR FRESH SEARCH AND ADJUDICATION . I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF AY 2012 - 13 WHETHER CUP METHOD WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND W HICH COMPARABLES WERE ADOPTED FROM THE ORDER PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND IN REJOINDER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 53 /PAPER BOOK FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THAT ASSESSEE IMPORT LUBRICATING MATERIAL FROM PARENT COMPANY IN BULK PACKING AND BRING THE SAME TO JOB WORKERS PLACE AT TALUJA , I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 13 NAVI MUMBAI AND GET IT REFILLED IN SMALL PACKS RANGING FROM 910 ML TO 210 LTRS WHICH IS SOLD TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS IN INDIA. O UR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO PAGE NO. 184 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINS THE SEGMENTAL RESU LTS OF GULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SAID SEGMENTS RESULTS ARE PART OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET . O UR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO PAGE NO. 220 WHEREIN BO TH GULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND SAH PETROLEUM LTD. WERE REFERRED IN THE LETTE R FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DRP - 1 , MUMBAI AND IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT NO SEGMENTAL RESULTS IN THE CASE OF SAH PETROLEUM LIMITED ARE AVAILABLE , WHILE IN THE CASE OF GULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAME DOES NOT REVEAL THE TRUE PICTURE OF THE SAID SEGMENTAL RESULTS . 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDER ED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING CITED CASE LAWS . W E HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PROCURING/IMPORTING LUBRICANTS IN B ULK FROM ITS PARENT COMPANY G.S.CALTEX CORPORATION, SOUTH KOREA WHICH HOLDS 100% SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SELLING IN INDIA TO ITS CUSTOMERS AFTER REPACKING IN SMALL PACKS OF 910 ML. TO 210 LTRS . THE ASSESSEES INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH I TS AES WAS REFERRED BY AO TO TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER(TPO) U/S. 92CA(1) OF THE ACT. THE TPO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE IS REPACKING IN SMALL PACKETS OF LUBRICATING OILS OF 910 ML. TO 210 LTRS. MANUFACTURED FROM THE LUBRICATING OIL IMPORTED FROM ITS AE IN BULK PACKS/FLEXI PACKS OF 20,000 LTRS. WHICH ARE THEN SOLD TO CUSTOMER IN INDIAN MARKET IN SMALL PACKS. THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY IS AS UNDER: - SR.NO NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION QUANTITY TOTAL CIF VALUE (IN. RS.) 1. LUBRICANTS IN FLEXI BAGS - PURCHASES - ROYALTY - INTEREST 3880298 LTRS 18,92,59,403/ - 2,10,848/ - 3,38,439/ - TOTAL 18,98,09,690/ - THE DISPUTE BETWEEN RIVAL PARTIES HAVE ARISEN W.R.T. COMPUTATION/ DETERMINATION OF ARM LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF ASSESSEES INTERNATIONAL I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 14 TRAN SACTION FOR IMPORT OF LUBRICATING OIL FROM ITS AE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD.THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY AD O PTED COST PLUS METHOD FOR BENCH MARKING ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION S WITH ITS AE AND ITS AE WAS ADOPTED AS TESTED PARTY . THE ASSESSEE COMPARED THE PRICES CHARGE D OF LUBRICATING OIL BY ITS AE TO IT WITH THE PRICES CHARGED BY ITS AE FROM THE COMPANIES SI TUATED IN OTHER GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS /COUNTRIES SUCH AS NEPAL, CHINA, GHANA, ETC. AND THE ASSESSEE CAME INTO CONCLUSION THAT THE PRICE CHARGE D BY ITS AE FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR IMPORT OF LUBRICATING OIL IS WITHIN ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE FOR IMPORT OF LUBRICATING OIL FROM ITS AE AND NO TP ADJUSTMENTS/ ADDITIONS ARE WARRANTED U/S. 92 C . AS PER AO, WHILE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT ADOPTED COST PLUS METHOD BUT IN - FACT THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICES (CUP ) METHOD , WHEREIN IT ADOPTED INTERNAL CUP METHOD TO BENCH MARK ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH IT S AE FOR IMPORT OF LUBRICATING OIL . T HE ASSESSEES AE IS MANUFACTURING BASE OIL AND C ONVERTING INTO LUBRICANTS OIL AND SUPPLYING THE SAME TO ITS SUBSIDIARIES/ ASSOCIATED COMPANIES WORLDWIDE. AS PER AO, THE AE DOESNT ASSUME MUCH RIS K AS IT MANUFACTURES AND SUPPLY TO ITS SUBSIDIARIES/ ASSOCIATED COMPANIES ACROSS GLOBE. T HE BRAND CALTEX IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND ITS AE DEALT IS A 10 0 YEARS OLD BRAND . T HE AO ADOPTED T RANSACTIONAL N ET M ARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS IN THE OPINION OF THE AO INTERNAL CUP METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RELIABLE KEEPING IN VIEW GEOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCES PREVAILING IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES WHEREIN THE SUBSIDI ARIES/ASSOCIATED COMPANIES WERE SITUATED TO WHOM SUPPLIES WERE ALSO MADE BY ITS AE , DIFFERENT QUALITIES OF LUBRICATING OIL SUPPLIED BY ITS AE IN DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIES /COUNTRIES AS ALSO THE DIFFERENCE IN QUANTITY DEALT IN THESE DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICAL MARKE TS RENDERING CUP METHOD AS UNRELIABLE . WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY ADOPTED TNMM METHOD DUE TO THESE DIFFERENCES NOTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS CUP METHOD REQUIRES HIGH DEGREE OF COMPARISON IN THE PRODUCT/SERVICES, GEOGRAP HIES AND OTHER ATTRIBUTES SUCH AS SCALE OF OPERATIONS, TYPE OF MARKET ETC. . THE COMPARATIVE CHART SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE REFLECTING SUPPLIES MADE BY ITS AE IN OTHER GEOGRAPHIES (COUNTRIES) CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THERE ARE PRODUCT QUALITY DIFFERENTIAL AND OTHER DIFFERENCES SUCH AS SCALE OF OPERATIONS AS THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY BUYING IN LARGER QUANTITIES FROM ITS AE ETC , THAN QUANTITIES SOLD BY ITS AE IN OTHER GEOGRAPHICAL (COUNTRIES) AREAS MAKING CUP UNRELIABLE. THUS, SO FAR AS TNMM I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 15 ADOPTED BY AUTHORITI ES BELOW IS CONCERNED , WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS TNMM WILL COMPARE THE OPERATING MARGINS OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS WITH THAT OF OPERATING MARGINS OF COMPANIES OPERATING IN SIMILAR BUSINESSES. TH IS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERAT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED TO HAVE CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENSES WHICH WERE INCURRED FOR INITIAL SET - UP OF BUSINESSES WHICH ARE NOT ROUTINE EXPENSES SUCH AS SETTING UP OF THE COMPANY / INFRASTRUCTURE /OFFICES/DEPOTS AND HIRING COSTS OF NEW EMPLOYEES E TC. WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAS PULLED DOWN OP/ TC TO A NEGATIVE FIGURE OF ( - ) 18.97% BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSES WERE INCURRED TOWARDS THESE INITIAL COSTS . THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES TO BE GIVEN ADJUSTMENTS FOR THESE EXTRA - ORDINARY COSTS INCURRED IN THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATIONS . THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE EXCLUSION OF THESE EXTRA - ORDINARY COSTS WHILE COMPUTING PLI. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE AO RIGHTLY ADOPTED TNM ME THOD AND FINALLY SHORTLISTED SAH PETROLEUM LTD. AND G ULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COME FORWARD WITH ITS LIST OF COMPARABLES AS IT ADOPTED COST PLUS METHOD AS DETAILED ABOVE AND ADOPTED ITS AE AS TESTED PARTIES AND COMPARATIVE PRICES CHARGED BY ITS AE IN DIFFERENT GE OGRAPHICAL AREAS WERE CONSIDERED . B OTH THE COMPANIES SELECTED AS COMPARABLE BY AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LUBRICATING OIL . BOTH THESE COMPARABLE COMPANIES ARE OLD AND WELL ESTABLISHED COMPANIES DEALING IN ESTABLISHED BRANDS . THE ASS ESSEE IS ALSO DEALING IN ESTABLISHED BRAND CALTEX WHICH IS MORE THAN 100 YEARS OLD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT SAH PETROLEUM LIMITED IS ENGAGED MAJORLY AND PRIMARILY IN BUSINESS OF LUBRICATING OIL. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT SEGMENT RESULTS OF SAH PETROL EUM LIMITED ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WHICH ARE PLACED IN PAPER BOOK. WE REJECT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE SAH PETROLEUM LIMITED IS MAJORL Y AND PRIMARILY IN LUBRICATING O ILS BUSINESS, THUS, THERE IS NO NEED TO HAVE SEPARATE SEGMENT RESULTS OF THE SAID COMPANY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING ALP AND FOR TP ADJUSTMENTS . SO FAR AS GULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED IS CONCERNED , IT IS IN BUSINESS OF LUBRICATING OILS AND EXPLOSIVES. THE EXPLOSIVE BUSINESS OF SAID GULF OIL CORP ORATION LIMITED WAS DIVESTED INTO SEPARATE COMPANY W.E.F. 01 - 10 - 2010 . S EGMENTS RESULTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR GULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED FROM THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH ARE PLACED IN FILED . THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE DIRECTED TO ADOPT PLI BEING OP/TC OF THE LUBRICATING BUSINESS OF GULF OIL I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 16 CORPORATION LIMITED BASED ON SEGMENT RESULTS OF GULF OIL CORPORATION LIMITED . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO TP ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE NEXT YE AR AND HENCE NO ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE IN THIS YEAR LACKS MERIT AS FIRSTLY COMPLETE DETAILS ARE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE COMPARABLE SHORT LISTED , TP STUDY REPORT OF THAT YEAR ETC TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTION AND SECONDLY PRINCIPLES OF RES - JUD ICATA ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME - TAX PROCEEDINGS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE , THE MATTER NEED TO BE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO /TPO FOR RE - ADJUDICATION BY RE - COMPUTING ALP FOR BENCH MARKING INTERNATIONAL T RANSACTION S OF THE ASSESSEE FOR IMPORT OF LUBRICATING OILS FROM ITS AE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS AS OUTLINED IN THIS ORDER . THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE COGENT EVIDENCES /MATERIAL TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS . T HE ASSESSEE AT THE SAME TIME IS ALSO GIVEN LIBERTY TO FILE ITS LIST OF COMPARABLES AS THE SAME WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER AS IT WAS STATED TO BE FOLLOWING COST PLUS METHOD . T HE NECESSARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS DEFENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED BY THE AO WHICH SHALL BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO SHALL PROVIDE PROPER AN D ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSES SEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE ORDER ACCORDING LY. 8 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.06 .2018 01.06 .2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R MUMBAI, DATED: 01.06 .2018 I.T.A. NO.228/MUM/2016 17 COPY TO 1 . THE APPELLANT 2 . THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4 . THE CIT - CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5 . THE DR BENCH, 6 . MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI