The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that when, in an earlier year, the taxpayer accepted the tax department’s position pursuant to mutual agreement procedure (MAP) proceedings, the taxpayer’s acceptance was not to be considered to be a basis for the taxpayer’s consent for a transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the tax authorities for a later year.
The case is: ACIT v. Turner International India Pvt Ltd.
The taxpayer—engaged in the distribution of satellite TV channels and soliciting advertisements to be telecast on TV channels—aggregated its transactions pertaining to the distribution functions (subscription fees paid, advertisement rights, etc.) and benchmarked these by comparing its operating margin with companies engaged in the distribution of retail products.
The Transfer Pricing Officer disregarded the “functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed” (FAR) analysis, and instead used service providers as comparables for the taxpayer’s distribution segment and proposed a transfer pricing adjustment.
In earlier years, the taxpayer had selected distributors as comparables, whereas the tax department had used service providers as comparables. The taxpayer had then accepted the tax department’s position during MAP proceedings.
The tribunal held that the taxpayer’s action in the prior year (of accepting the comparables in the MAP proceedings) is not to be consider consent of the taxpayer for the adjustments proposed in the assessment year under examination.
Read a June 2016 report [PDF 315 KB] prepared by the KPMG member firm in India: Even though in earlier years, the taxpayer itself had accepted the department’s stand in MAP proceedings, this should not be considered as a consent of the taxpayer for the adjustment proposed by the department in earlier years
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.