Delhi ITAT: Royalty rates approved by RBI, accepted as CUP

In ruling dated December 16, 2011, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal of Delhi (‘Delhi ITAT’) ruled in favor of the taxpayer, Sona Okegawa Precision Forgings Ltd., wherein arm’s length price of the royalty payment to associated enterprise was computed as Nil by the transfer pricing officer.

Sona Okegawa Precision Forgings Ltd. (‘the taxpayer’) is a joint venture between Sona Holding and Mitsubishi Materials Corporation, Japan (‘the associated enterprise’). The taxpayer was formed in 1995 and began commercial production in November 1998. The taxpayer is engaged in the manufacturing of precision forged (net shaped) bevel gears, differential case assemblies and synchroniser rings for automotive and other applications.

During the financial year 2005-06, the taxpayer had several transactions including payment of royalty with its associated enterprise. In order to validate the arm’s length nature of payment of royalty, the taxpayer relied upon the technical collaboration agreement approved by the Government of India for payment of royalty @ 1% and 3% of net sale price of the manufactured goods sold or used by the taxpayer as Comparable Uncontrolled Price (‘CUP’). As a corroborative method, the taxpayer also relied upon the transactional net margin method.

The case was selected for the transfer pricing audit, wherein the transfer pricing officer rejected the CUP analysis carried out by the taxpayer and observed that:

• The taxpayer is a contract manufacturer and as per guidelines issued by OECD, there is no justification for payment of royalty in such a case.
• Secondly, the taxpayer has itself created provision for technical know-how separately as seen from the schedules of the audit report.

 The taxpayer, filed an appeal before Dispute Resolution Panel and the same was turned down.

The taxpayer, appealed with Delhi ITAT and Hon’ble Delhi ITAT observed;

• On issue relating to royalty - The taxpayer has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 30.04.1993 written by the Reserve Bank of India, Exchange Control Department, to the taxpayer, in which payment of royalty @ 3% on domestic sales was allowed to be paid for a period of five years. There are similar other correspondences which have been placed on record. The taxpayer has also placed on record a press note issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, issued in 2003, under which royalty payment @ 8% on export sales and 5% on domestic sales have been referred to be reasonable for the purpose of processing approval of payments. On the other hand, the officer failed to bring any material on record that payment of royalty @ 3% was not at arm’s length. Therefore, the payment stands justified under the CUP method.
•  On issue relating to contract manufacturer – Bulk of sales are to uncontrolled parties. Thus, the taxpayer is not a captive manufacturer supplying all manufactured goods to its associated enterprise. In fact, the technology has been used for manufacturing and supplying goods to independent parties.

My Comment’s

I am bit skeptical about usage of rates allowed by the Reserve Bank of India as CUP for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis under light of this ruling. I am of the feel that this ruling is more because of the fact that the transfer pricing officer not did his homework well and not submitted any CUP data to say transaction between the taxpayer and its associated enterprises was not at arm’s length. Further, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of M/s Coca-Cola India Inc. vs. ACIT (C.W.P. No.16681 of 2005)

“The contention that according to the permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India under the FERA, the assessee cannot charge more than particular price, can also not control the provisions of the Act, which provides for taxing the income as per the said provision or computation of income, having regard to arm’s length price in any international transaction, as defined.”

Thanks for visiting news section of my website www.jgarg.com and reading the update. Keep visiting…

In case if you require expert level of assistance in your transfer pricing case  or any other transfer pricing services, please feel free to contact me.

Best Regards

Gaurav Garg

+91 98999 94934

JGarg Economic Advisors

www.jgarg.com

Chennai ITAT: Uncontrolled price on date of sales contract should be considered as CUP

In case of Liberty Agri Products (P) Ltd (IT APPEAL NO. 1610 (MDS.) OF 2010), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal of Chennai (‘Chennai ITAT’) has observed that uncontrolled price on the date of sales contract should be considered as comparable uncontrolled price (‘CUP’) instead of uncontrolled price on the date of shipment received on the port.

Liberty Agri Products (P) Ltd. (‘Taxpayer’) is a part of M/s Kuok Group. During FY 2005-06, the taxpayer entered into transactions with its group company in Singapore, wherein the taxpayer purchased edible oil worth USD 23,530,749.06 and applied CUP as the most appropriate method. For the purpose of CUP, the taxpayer relied upon internal CUP (i.e. sales made by the associated enterprise in comparable transactions to third parties in India) and also on notification issued by the Custom Authorities in respect of tariff value on import of edible oils on the date of signing of sales contract. As corroborative evidence the taxpayer also documented the rates of oil published by Solvent Extractors Association of India in relation to degummed soya bean oil could also be well relied on.

During the transfer pricing scrutiny, the transfer pricing officer rejected the CUP data of the taxpayer and instead took Customs average rage at Kandla Port. As there was difference of more than 5% per metric ton, the transfer pricing officer suggested an addition of Rs. 26. 13 million.  

The taxpayer appealed before the Chennai ITAT, after an unsuccessful attempt before lower authorities.

Chennai ITAT agreed to the contentions of the taxpayer that instead of comparing the price with the Customs tariff rate on the date of entry into the port, the transfer pricing officer should have compared the price declared by the taxpayer with the Customs tariff rate at Kandla Port as it is stood on the day of contract of sale entered into between the taxpayer and its associated enterprise. Further, Chennai ITAT also observed that in these types of bulk purchases and sales, it is always better to compare the price of individual consignments rather than on a compromise of average price. 

In case if you have any query on transfer pricing, please feel free to call us.

Best Regards

Gaurav Garg

JGarg Economic Advisors

New Delhi, India

www.jgarg.com

(P) +91 11 470 94934

(M) +91 11 999 94934

(E) gaurav@jgarg.com

ITAT Hyderabad: Corporate Guarantee is not an International Transaction

Important observation made by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of Hyderabad in case of Four Soft Ltd. dated September 9, 2011, for your reference;

• For computing the net margin of the taxpayer for the purposes of transfer pricing, only the cost related to the transaction with the Associated Enterprises has to be considered and accordingly segmented financials is to be considered for the purpose of arriving at the net margin on the international transaction. 
• Exchange fluctuation gains arise out of several factors, for instance, realisation of export proceeds at higher rate, import dues payable at lower rate. Since the gain or loss on account of exchange rate fluctuation arises in the normal course of business transaction, the same should be considered while computing the net margin for the international transactions with the associated enterprises of the taxpayer.
• TP legislation provides for computation of income from international transaction as per Section 92B of the Act. The corporate guarantee provided by the taxpayer company does not fall within the definition of international transaction. The TP legislation does not stipulate any guidelines in respect to guarantee transactions. In the absence of any charging provision, the lower authorities are not correct in bringing aforesaid transaction in the TP study. In considered view of Hon'ble ITAT, the corporate guarantee is very much incidental to the business of the taxpayer and hence, the same cannot be compared to a bank guarantee transaction of the Bank or financial institution.

Thanks for reading, please feel free to share your view on the same.

Best Regards

Gaurav Garg

JGarg Economic Advisors

www.jgarg.com  

+91 9899994934

gaurav@jgarg.com

ITAT Mumbai: No need for benefit test analysis while computing ALP for receipt of management services

Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT Mumbai') pronounced a very important judgment in case of Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd vs. Add. CIT on September 7, 2011, where in it observed that there is no need for carrying our benefit test analysis while computing arm's length price of receipt of management services under cost contribution arrangement from associated enterprises. 

BackGround

The taxpayer, a subsidiary of Dresser Rand US (“DR US”), is engaged in the business of manufacturing various types of process gas compressors, including horsepower reciprocating compressors and its accessories, and also of providing field services in connection with the same. 

Two types of international transactions which were under review before the Hon’ble ITAT in the captioned cases are as follows;

• Payment for management charges under cost contribution arrangement (“CCA”), by DR India to DR US, equal to INR 105.5 million
• Allowing discount equal to 10% on field services provided to foreign associated enterprises (AEs), equal to INR 1.07 million

The transfer pricing officer (‘TPO’) computed “nil” value for management services received by DR India and also ruled that no discount should have been allowed to the AEs. DR India filed an appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’), however the latter also  upheld the view of the TPO.

The case went to ITAT Mumbai and verdict came in favour of DR India. Please find summary of the views and submission of parties to the case and observation of ITAT Mumbai on the same.

Cost Contribution Arrangement – Payment for Management Charges

Benefit Test Analysis

The TPO argued that DR India has not received any benefit from the subject CCA. As per the TPO;

• It was incorrect on the part of DR India that DR India does not have an audit department and so needed to avail audit services from DR US, given the fact that DR India have two managers and executives in the field of accounts and also has paid INR 2.186 million towards audit fees to external consultants.
• DR India is a cash rich company and accordingly it is in no need of treasury services from DR US.
•  DR India has several management, marketing and production experts on its payroll and thus in no need for guidance from global leadership. 
• Similar expenditure was not there in the earlier years.
• By availing these services, the overall profitability and growth rate should have gone up but it indeed came down

DR India argued and submitted the documents to support that it has received management services from DR US. Further, it has used Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) to justify the arm’s length nature of transaction.

On the benefit test analysis, ITAT Mumbai observed;

• It is only elementary that how the taxpayer conducted his business is entirely his prerogative and it is not for the tax authorities to decide what is necessary for the taxpayer and what is not.
• The TPO has gone much beyond his powers by questioning commercial wisdom of DR India’s decision to take benefit of expertise of DR US
•  When evaluating the arm’s length price of the services, it is wholly irrelevant as to whether the taxpayer benefits from it or not. The real question  to be determined in such cases is whether the price of these services is, what an independent enterprise would have paid for the same.
• It is also irrelevant that whether the AE rendered the same services to the taxpayer in the preceding years without any consideration or not

Arm’s Length Price - Allocation Keys

The TPO argued that the allocation keys used under CCA is not correct i.e. instead of using sales and number of staff as the keys, the cost should be shared in the ratio of actual use of services and the cost should be charged as per Indian employee cost.

However, ITAT Mumbai ruled in favour of the taxpayer by observing the following points;

• There is no objective way in which use of services can be measured and as is the commercial practice even in market factors driven situation, the costs are shared in accordance with some objective criterion, including sales revenue and number of employees
• The question of charging as per domestic employee costs cannot be the basis of allocating the costs because such an allocation will deal with some hypothetical pricing whereas the allocations are to be done for the actual costs incurred.
• As it is an allocation of costs on the basis of actual costs and the fact of expenditure is not even in dispute, the dispute is confined to the basis on which cost allocations must take place. And since we find the basis for allocation of costs as reasonable, no interference is really called for.

Discount on Field Services to AEs

The TPO noted that the field services were rendered to the domestic customers as also to the AEs abroad, but the taxpayer grants a discount of 10% to the AEs. He noted the taxpayer’s contention that this discount of 10% is given to the AEs as a part of the global policy, and on reciprocal basis. However, the TPO held that since the taxpayer has allowed discount to the AEs, to that extent, the price of services rendered is not an arm’s length price.

However, ITAT Mumbai ruled in favour of the taxpayer by observing the following points;

• DR India has followed TNMM as the most appropriate method for the purpose of computation of arm’s length price and the TPO has any argument against TNMM. The question of applying CUP method, even if that be so, can only arise if TNMM is rejected.
•  Even under CUP method, it is not necessary that all sales must take at the same price. There can always be variation of prices for the same product or services on valid grounds, such as quantum of business, risk factors, marketing efforts needed etc. Whenthe taxpayer is dealing with an AE, at least there are no commercial risks, no marketing costs and there could be several other factors as well justifying a normal discount as the taxpayer could indeed go to many important customers.
• There is nothing on record to even suggest that such a discount is not an arm’s length discount, or that discounts have not been allowed under any other situations.

Analysis of Judgement

Payment of Management Charges

For the last couple of years, the TPOs/ tax authorities emphasized on benefit test analysis for management charges paid by the Indian subsidiaries to their AEs and in many cases, like the present case, the tax payers failed to satisfy the tax authorities on benefit test. Accordingly, the tax payers face transfer pricing additions. Now, this judgment would certainly bring a relief to the taxpayers.

But technically speaking the observation of ITAT Mumbai that “it is wholly irrelevant as to whether the taxpayer benefits from it or not” is not very sound. To put it in another words, ITAT Mumbai wants to say that if your size of shoe is 9 inches you may still buy a shoe of 7 inches or say 12 inches. All my readers would agree that generally pricing of a commercial transaction is a process which is dependent upon two parameters i.e.

• What is the cost of the supplier, and
• Utility to the consumer

As per economic principle, the transaction generally happens at a point or a price where the above two intersect each other or may be at a point where difference between them is insignificant.

I am of the feel that this observation of ITAT Mumbai is based on the assumption that to take management services is in fact DR India’s decision, (refer para 8 of the order)

“The Transfer Pricing Officer was not only going much beyond his powers in questioning commercial wisdom of assessee’s decision to take benefit of expertise of Dresser Rand US, but also beyond the powers of the Assessing Officer. We do not approve this approach of the revenue authorities.”

As a student of transfer pricing, I have learned that it may not be correct to go with the above assumption while evaluating a case between two AEs. Because, the very start of the transfer pricing analysis is based on the assumption that the “relationship between two enterprises can have influence on commercial decisions and price of transactions”.

I am eagerly waiting to see whether the Tax Authorities would appeal before Hon’ble High Court against the observation of ITAT Mumbai and if yes then how well prepared they would be, to tackle the findings of the ITAT Mumbai.  

Discount on Field Services to AEs

It’s a good observation by ITAT Mumbai and I am in line with the same. But I would like to suggestmy readers that they should try to collate documents to support “%” of discount i.e. why discount should be 10% and why not 5%.

Thanks for reading...keep visiting and contact us if you have any feedback...

Best Regards

Gaurav Garg

JGarg Economic Advisors

www.jgarg.com

+91 9899994934

gaurav@jgarg.com

Delhi ITAT: For the purpose of transfer pricing analysis different STP units of a taxpayer should not be analysed on a standalone basis

In its recent judgment dated June 17, 2011 in case of ACIT vs. Birla Soft Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 4001 (Delhi) 2009] Hon’ble Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Delhi ITAT’) observed that it would be wrong to consider different STP units of the taxpayer on a standalone basis, for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis, wherein the services provided by the units are same/similar and to same Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’). Further, Delhi ITAT also observed that current year data of an uncontrolled transaction is to be used for the purpose of comparability, while examining the international transactions with AEs.

Facts

Birla Soft Ltd. (‘Taxpayer’) is the wholly owned subsidiary of Birla Soft Enterprises, which is further  owned by  Birla Soft Inc. US. It is engaged in the business of software development and related services. The software related business was being carried out from Software Technology Park (‘STP’). For the purpose of computation of arm’s length price, the taxpayer selected transactional net margin method (‘TNMM’) as the most appropriate method and justified the net margin earned on an operating cost (‘NCP’) on a company wide basis vis-à-vis margin earned by 24 comparable companies.

During the course of assessment, the assessing officer referred the case to the transfer pricing officer (‘TPO’) for computation of arm’s length price. The TPO;

·         rejected the company wide approach of the taxpayer and in-turn compared the profitability of each STP units on a standalone basis with the mean margin of comparable companies.

·         Out of 24 comparable companies selected by the taxpayer, the TPO rejected 9 companies.

·         Further, instead of multiple/ prior years data used by the taxpayer of comparable companies, the TPO only used current year data.

As out of 3, 2 STP Units were having lower NCP than the mean NCP of comparable companies, the TPO suggested transfer pricing addition.

The case travelled to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) and it disapproved the STP units on a standalone approach of the TPO. [The judgment is silent on stand of CIT(A) on comparable companies and usage of multiple/ prior years data].

Against the order of CIT(A), the Tax Department/ TPO filed an appeal before Delhi ITAT. The couple of transfer pricing issues which were raised before Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in this case were;

·         Whether the multiple year data used by the tax payer precedes the current year data used by the tax authorities?

·         Should each STP unit be considered as the standalone unit for computing ALP or the result of all the STP units has to be considered in totality?

Observation of Delhi ITAT – STP Units on a standalone basis

Hon’ble Delhi ITAT observed that there is no significant functional difference in the software development and maintenance services to related and unrelated parties. The services rendered by the STP Unit were rendered to the same AEs of, namely, Birla Soft Inc. US and Birla Soft UK on continuing basis. The terms and conditions for rendering such services by each of the STP Unit was governed by one single agreement entered into between Birla Soft India and Birla Soft Inc. US. The learned TPO assumed that functions, assets and risks (‘FAR’) undertaken by each of the STP Unit are distinct from each other and is comparable with the functions, assets and risks undertaken by existing comparables. In other words, learned TPO totally ignored the unity of the business, administrative control and unity of funds etc. The independent FAR analysis of each unit with existing comparables is practically not possible because there is a common management, interlacing of the funds etc.

Based on the above findings, Delhi ITAT held that the different STP Unites should not be benchmarked on a standalone basis.

Observation of Delhi ITAT – Usage of Multiple / Prior years data

Hon’ble Delhi ITAT observed that the usage of word ‘shall’ in the Rule 10B(4) makes it mandatory to first use the current year data and the proviso appended to the main section carves out an exception that the data relating to maximum two years prior to the current year may be considered, if the circumstances reveal an influence on the determination of transfer prices in the current year.

Rule 10B(4) of the Income-tax Rules

“(4) The data to be used in analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction shall be the data relating to the financial year in which the international transaction has been entered into :

Provided that data relating to a period not being more than two years prior to such financial year may also be considered if such data reveals facts which could have an influence on the determination of transfer prices in relation to the transactions being compared.”

In this case, as the taxpayer was not able to demonstrate the influence of multiple/ prior year’s data on the determination of transfer prices in the current year, the view of the TPO was upheld.

Thanks for visiting to our blog...keep visiting...

Please feel free to contact us for transfer pricing services like transfer pricing documentation assistance, transfer pricing control framework, transfer pricing planning, transfer pricing litigation etc.

Best Regards

Gaurav Garg

JGarg Economic Advisors

E: gaurav@jgarg.com

M: +91 98999 94934

JGarg: Your Transfer Pricing Partner

Chennai ITAT: Domestic PLR is not a comparable interest rate for loan given in foreign currency

Judgment dated May 20, 2011 of Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in case of Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [IT Appeal No.2148 (MDS) of 2010] provides bit of guidance on justification of arm’s length rate of interest (‘ALP’) for a loan given by an Indian Company to its Foreign Subsidiary.

Facts of the Case

The tax payer, Siva Industries, has granted a loan to its subsidiary company in Mauritius for the purpose of making investment and had charged 6% interest p.a. the tax payer took average of 12 month’s US $ denominated LIBOR rate for the said period for the purpose of computing the ALP.

The tax authorities contended that the said rate cannot be taken for computing ALP since the loan was given from India and hence Prime Lending Rate (PLR) in India at that time should be considered and accordingly determined 11.75% p.a as the rate for computing the ALP and made the addition consequently.

Observation of the ITAT

The ITAT observed that as the loan provided to subsidiary company in Mauritius was out of its own funds and in foreign currency, the transaction would have to be looked upon by applying commercial principles in regard to international transaction. If that was so, then the domestic PLR would have no applicability. Further, the Hon’ble ITAT has also observed that as the rate charged by the taxpayer is more than mean LIBOR for a year, the LIBOR charged by the taxpayer from its subsidiary company in Mauritius is at arm’s length.

Our Comments

We feel though this judgment would provide relief to the taxpayers but it should give worry to the tax authorities. From a technical perspective it is correct to say that domestic PLR should not be considered comparable interest rate for the foreign currency loan however it may not be correct to say that LIBOR can be considered as comparable interest rate.

We understand that LIBOR is an interest rate at which banks can borrow funds, in marketable size, from other banks in the London interbank market. The LIBOR is fixed on a daily basis by the British Bankers' Association. The LIBOR is derived from a filtered average of the world's most creditworthy banks' interbank deposit rates for larger loans with maturities between overnight and one full year.

The LIBOR is the world's most widely used benchmark for short-term interest rates. It's important because it is the rate at which the world's most preferred borrowers are able to borrow money. It is also the rate upon which rates for less preferred borrowers are based. For example, a multinational corporation with a very good credit rating may be able to borrow money for one year at LIBOR plus four or five points. 

(Source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/libor.asp)

We feel the correct approach would be to consider LIBOR as a base rate and then adjustment should be carried out based on the credit worthiness of the borrower and other commercial factors like time period, security, purpose etc.

Thanks for visiting to our blog...keep visiting...

Please feel free to contact us for transfer pricing services like transfer pricing documentation assistance, transfer pricing control framework, transfer pricing planning, transfer pricing litigation etc.

Best Regards

Gaurav Garg

JGarg Economic Advisors

E: gaurav@jgarg.com

M: +91 98999 94934

JGarg: Your Transfer Pricing Partner

Non Filing of Form 3CEB Would Attract Penalty: ITAT Hyderabad

In its recent judgment in case of GI Systems Org. (India) Pvt. Ltd.v.ITO [I.T.A. NO. 156 & 157/HYD/2010] dated March 25, 2011, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal of Hyderabad has observed that in case there is an international transaction then the taxpayer must file Accountant's Report in Form 3CEB as required by sec 92E of the Act. Otherwise the taxpayer would be liable for penalty equal to Rs.100,000 under the provision of sec 271BA of the Act.


Keep Visiting
CA. Gaurav Garg
JGarg Economic Advisors
New Delhi, India
www.jgarg.com


Contact us for expert level of transfer pricing services (M) +91 9899994934 (E) gaurav@jgarg.com

Budget 2011: Proposals relating to transfer pricing regulations and transactions with persons in notified jurisdiction

5% Range – Section 92C

Currently as per the provisions of section 92C, if more than one price is determined by the chosen transfer pricing method, then the arm’s length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices. However, as per provisio to section 92C(2), if the variation between the transaction price and the mean arm’s length price does not exceed 5 % of the transactional price,then  no adjustment would be made and the actual price shall be treated as the arm’s length price.

Through Finance Bill 2011, it is proposed that instead of “5%” variation as allowed currently in section 92C, the Central Government will notify “certain percentage” through official gazette. We understand that there are possibilities that the Central Government may come-up with the variations based on type of business activity, industry or nature of international transactions. For e.g. it may be 5% for Auto Ancillary and 10% for ITeS.

This amendment is proposed to take effect from 1^st April 2012.

Power of Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’)

Computation of arm’s length price of International Transaction

As per the existing provisions of section 92CA, the TPO cannot determine the arm’s length price of an international transaction, which has not been referred to him by the Assessing Officer. The same is also upheld by the Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in case of Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. (2011-TII-22-ITATDEL-TP).   Accordingly, during the course of transfer pricing audit, if some international transaction is identified by the TPO, which is not the one referred by the Assessing Officer, then in such a case the TPO  cannot compute the arms length price of such international transaction.

In order to overcome this administrative weakness, it is proposed to introduce “sub-section (2A)” of 92CA after “sub-section (2)” of 92CA,. The same will grant  power to the TPO to compute the arm’s length price of the  newly identified international transactions even though they may not be referred by the Assessing Officer for computation of arm’s length price.

Power of Survey

It is proposed to amend sub-section (7) of 92CA to give additional power to the TPO to conduct the survey as embedded under section 133A of the Act.

These amendments are proposed to take effect from 1^st June 2011.

Report under section 92E and Due date of Return under section 139

Section 139 of the Act stipulates that 30^th September of the assessment year is the due date for filing return of income in case of corporate taxpayer. In addition to filing return of income, the taxpayer having international transactions during the year is also required to file  a report from Chartered Accountant under section 92E in Form 3CEB on or before due date of filing of return of income.

One should appreciate that the Government recognized the practical difficulty faced by the taxpayer in “accessing” the “contemporary comparable data” and to furnish a report under Form 3CEB before 30^th September of the relevant assessment year. It is therefore proposed to amend section 139 and to extend the due date of filing return of income and filing of report under Form 3CEB of such taxpayer to 30^th November.

To our mind, now it would be important that the transfer pricing document, along with the comparability analysis, prepared by the taxpayer should be based on the current year data instead of previous year data.

This amendment is proposed to take effect from 1^st April 2011.

Transaction with the person in notified jurisdiction and applicability of transfer pricing provisions

It is proposed to insert a new section 94A in the Act to specifically deal with the transactions undertaken by the resident taxpayer with a person located in a jurisdiction or country which does not effectively exchange information with India. It is proposed:

• That Central Government will notify such jurisdiction or country
• That if a taxpayer enters into a transaction, where one of the parties to the  transaction is a person located in a notified jurisdiction or country, then all the parties to the transaction shall be deemed to be the associated enterprises and the transaction will be deemed to be the international transaction and accordingly transfer pricing regulation would be applicable
• That no deduction in respect of a payment made to any financial institution shall be allowed unless the taxpayer furnishes the authorization to the tax authorities to seek relevant information from the financial institution
• That in order to claim expenditure or allowance (including depreciation) arising from a  transaction with the  person in notified area, the taxpayer shall maintain the prescribed document/ information
• That if the taxpayer receives some money/ sum from the person in notified area, then the  taxpayer must satisfy the source of fund in the hands of that person or it will be deemed to be the income of the taxpayer
• That rate of TDS shall be 30% or the rate in force or rate as per the Act, which ever is higher

This amendment is proposed to take effect from 1^st June 2011.

If you have any query, please feel free to call us or write us. Keep on visiting our blog for latest transfer pricing news.

Best Regards

Gaurav Garg

JGarg Economic Advisors

New Delhi, India

(M) +91 9899994934

(E) gaurav@jgarg.com