Monday, December 27, 2010

Delhi HC: DRP must give “cogent and germane reasons” in support of s. 144C directions

In response to writ filed by Vodafone Essar Ltd. against the order of Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that when a quasi judicial authority (like the DRP) deals with an issue, it is obligatory on its part to ascribe cogent and germane reasons as the same is the heart and soul of the matter. And further, the same also facilitates appreciation when the order is called in question before the superior forum.

The important thing which can bring smile on the face of the taxpayer is that the learned counsel for the revenue conceded that the directions given by DRP to the AO “deserved to be quashed”.

Please free to call us for transfer pricing services...

Happy Reading
Gaurav Garg
Transfer Pricing Consultant

(M) +91 9899994934
(E) gaurav@jgarg.com

JGarg Economic Advisors
New Delhi, India

www.jgarg.com

Friday, December 24, 2010

Delhi ITAT: Pass through costs should not be considered while computing net cost plus margin

In its recent ruling Delhi Bench of Income tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Delhi ITAT’) made a very important observation, in case of DCIT vs. Cheil Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (I.T.A. No. 712/Del/2010) ,that while doing the transfer pricing analysis the margin earned by the taxpayer on the functions performed is required to be considered and not the margin earned on the cost of services. This observation recognizes the concept of “pass through cost” and suggest that while computing the Net Cost plus Margin or say Cost plus Margin, “pass through cost” should not be considered in the denominator or cost base.

Cheil Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (‘the taxpayer’) is a subsidiary of Korean Parent Company (‘KPC’). The taxpayer is an advertising agency and is engaged in undertaking advertising services for its customers in respect of their Products and Brands, the capacity agent. As part of its business operations of preparation of advertisements and provision of related consultancy services, the taxpayer also facilitates placement of such advertisement in the print, electronic etc. media, as the case may be. For this purpose it makes payment to third parties like advertisement agencies, printing presses etc. for renting of advertisement space etc on behalf of its customers and recovers the same from the respective customers. Such third party payments per se, do not represent any value-added functions undertaken by the appellant.

The issue in this case is regarding Profit Level Indicator (‘PLI’), i.e. while determining denominator for the purpose of computation of net cost plus mark-up for transfer pricing analysis, whether Gross Cost needs to be considered or Cost net of “pass through costs” needs to be considered ( “Operating Profit/ Total Cost” vs. “Operating Profit/ Value Added Expenditure”). The taxpayer contented that it should be “Operating Profit/ Value Added Expenditure” and the tax authorities was of the view that it should be “Operating Profit/ Total Cost”.

[Total Cost = Value Added Expenditure + Pass Through Cost]
[Total Receipts = Agency Commission + Pass Through Cost]
[Operating Profit = Total Receipts – Total Cost = Agency Commission – Value Added Expenditure]

In light of the OECD guidelines and facts of the case, Delhi ITAT observed that a mark-up is to be applied to the cost incurred by the taxpayer in performing agency function and not to the cost of rendering advertising space on behalf of its associated enterprises i.e. “Operating Profit/ Value Added Expenditure”.

Please call us for transfer pricing services - advisory, documentation, litigation support etc.


Happy Reading
Gaurav Garg
JGarg Economic Advisors
New Delhi, India

+91 9899994934
gaurav@jgarg.com

www.jgarg.com

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Delhi ITAT: DRP should pass a proper and speaking direction u/s 144C of the Act

Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Delhi ITAT') in its recent judgment in the case of M/s GAP International Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, dated December 10, 2010, observed that the Disputes Resolution Panel ('DRP') has not at all considered the taxpayer’s submissions and passed a very laconic and non-speaking direction. And accordingly referred back the case to files of the DRP for there consideration once again.

Delhi ITAT noted that the directions given by the DRP almost tantamount to supervising the Assessing Officer’s draft order and in that sense it can be equated that appellate jurisdiction being exercised. Citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case M/s Sahara India (Farms) Vs. CIT & Anr. in [2008] 300 ITR 403 has held that even "an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice".

Happy Reading 
Gaurav Garg
JGarg Economic Advisors
(P) +91 98999944934
(E) gaurav@jgarg.com
www.jgarg.com

Thursday, December 9, 2010

OECD meets with business commentators on the scoping of its project on the transfer pricing aspects of intangibles


Almost 50 contributions were received from the public in response to the OECD’s July 2010 call for comments on the scoping of the new project on the Transfer Pricing Aspects of Intangibles to be undertaken in 2011 by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs’ Working Party No. 6 on the Taxation of Multinational Enterprises (“WP6”).

On 9 November 2010, WP6 met with commentators from the private sector to discuss the comments received and the scoping of this project. The agenda for the day and presentation material used by commentators have now been published. For more 

Best Regards
Gaurav Garg
JGarg Economic Advisors
www.jgarg.com

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Transfer Pricing News: Infosys Technologies Ltd. cannot be considered comparable to Captive Software Developer

December 07, 2010: In its latest judgement Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ( 'ITAT - Delhi') has held that a full fledged risk taking entrepreneurial software development company cannot be considered comparable to captive software development company.


In case of Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer,  ITAT Delhi observed that the transfer pricing officer has considered Infosys Technologies Ltd. as one of the comparable company during transfer pricing audit in case of Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ITAT Delhi noticed that Infosys Technologies Ltd is giant in the area of development of software and it assumes all risks, leading to higher profit. On the other hand, the taxpayer, Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which is providing software development services on cost plus 17% markup, is a captive unit of its parent company in the USA and it assumes only limited currency risk. And accordingly Infosys Technologies Ltd cannot be considered comparable company.


This judgement of Delhi ITAT should bring relief to captive software development companies operating in India which are facing transfer pricing audit. 


<<please feel free to post your comment and write to me>>


Best Regards
Gaurav Garg
gaurav@jgarg.com
JGarg Economic Advisors
www.jgarg.com