India: No related-party relationship, despite substantial single-party purchases

India: No related-party relationship

The Pune Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld findings of the Dispute Resolution Panel that because a taxpayer merely had substantial single-party purchases, this factor alone did not demonstrate an influence on pricing or other conditions that would be present in an associated enterprise or related-party relationship under the transfer pricing rules. The tribunal observed that the clauses of the distribution agreement showed that both the taxpayer and the supplier were independent parties. As such, the transfer pricing provisions were not applicable to the taxpayer.

Related content

The case identifying information is:  DCIT v. W.B. Engineers International Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 523/PN/2014)

Summary

The taxpayer engaged in trading, sales, and services of earth-moving equipment, mining equipment, and other items and also conducted an agency business. The taxpayer entered into a distribution agreement with an entity registered in Northern Ireland. Under that agreement, the taxpayer then imported a substantial amount of trading equipment from a member for the Northern Ireland entity’s corporate group.

During audit, the Transfer Pricing Officer determined that because a substantial portion of the purchases was from a single member of the corporate group, the foreign company exercised “complete influence” on the taxpayer’s activities and that this invoked the transfer pricing rules. In support of this position, it was noted that the taxpayer made substantial purchases (over 95%) from a single party and that this factor showed the taxpayer was a related party.

The taxpayer countered that it was only a distributor, and not a related party or associated enterprise of the foreign group. The taxpayer point out that there were other distributors of this group in India, as well. 

The Dispute Resolution Panel agreed with the taxpayer, that this was not a related-party relationship and that the transfer pricing rules did not apply. The tax department sought review by the Pune tribunal, which upheld the findings of the panel.

 

Read a September 2015 report [PDF 375 KB] prepared by the KPMG member firm in India: Despite substantial single party purchases, there is no associated enterprise relationship, as requirement of influence over pricing and other conditions relating thereto, are not satisfied  

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.

Connect with us

 

Request for proposal

 

Submit

KPMG's new digital platform

KPMG's new digital platform