The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that an expenditure made for a survey of the Indian market could not be construed to benefit the foreign related party (that made no direct sales in India). The tribunal agreed with the taxpayer’s determination under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method.
The tribunal also agreed with the taxpayer that the “payment of technical support cost” for technical training at the taxpayer’s production facility in India was at arm’s length, with payments made based on specified hourly rates. Accordingly, the tribunal rejected the Transfer Pricing Officer’s approach (effectively based on what was described as a random internet search). The tribunal endorsed a view that comparables are not to be rejected merely due to the geographical difference, unless the effect of differences in the market conditions is shown.
The case is: BMW India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 6160/Del./2014)
The taxpayer imported completely built units of motor vehicles, spare parts, and accessories from its foreign related parties for resale in the Indian market. The taxpayer also engaged in assembling “completely knocked down” kits of certain imported products from the related parties for resale in India.
During the year at issue, one of the taxpayer’s foreign related parties arranged for a market survey report of the Indian market to be prepared by a third party, and the foreign related party made direct payments to the third-party provider of the market survey report on behalf of the taxpayer. Subsequently, the foreign related party recovered the amount from the taxpayer “at cost” (no mark-up). The transaction was described as “payment of market survey expenses” in the taxpayer’s transfer pricing documentation, and the taxpayer justified the arm’s length nature of the transaction by application of the CUP method.
The taxpayer also entered into a service-level agreement with its related party for technical training in relation to the production facility in India. The payments were based on specified hourly rates, and were also supported by application of the CUP method.
The Transfer Pricing Officer challenged the market survey report payment, asserting that the market survey activity was performed for the ultimate benefit of the related party. The Transfer Pricing Officer also looked at the payment for the technical training and conducted a new search of the internet for hourly rates in the related party’s geographic area and based on this, made transfer pricing adjustments. These positions were administratively upheld, and the taxpayer filed for judicial review with the tribunal.
The tribunal held in favor of the taxpayer and found that:
The decision concludes that an expenditure specifically incurred for the Indian taxpayer’s market and to benefit the Indian taxpayer solely cannot be construed to benefit the foreign related party.
Read a June 2018 report [PDF 733 KB] prepared by the KPMG member firm in India
© 2018 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. All rights reserved.
Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm.
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.