Income Tax

Non profit company not a comparable to benchmark international transaction under Transfer Pricing

Non profit company not a comparable for Transfer Pricing. ITAT directed AO to exclude it from the list of comparables to benchmark international transaction.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3112 (2019) (08) ITAT

The appellant assessee was is a subsidiary of the parent company which operated travel website under several brands. The assessee performed the marketing support services and generally the activities to promote and market the website.

During the relevant Financial the assessee had undertaken two international transactions with its AEs, namely, Provision of Marketing Support Services and reimbursement of expenses.

The determination of arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transaction was referred to the TPO u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and by order, TPO recommended an adjustment u/s 92CA (3) of the Act.

Besides that while making certain disallowances, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment.

The CIT(A) inter alia brushed aside the contentions of the assessee to include use another entity as comparable instead of the entity used as comparable. Further, risk adjustment was denied to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that there was no dispute on the nature of the functions performed by the assessee. Functions performed by the assessee included the activities to promote and market the group’s Indian website under the direction and management of parent company identifying new Indian advertisers for the group websites, maintaining relationships with existing advertisers, and marketing and promoting the websites in India, and were determining the market conditions in India and informing UK counterpart of the local terms and pricing levels.

With regard to the entity requested to be excluded from the list of comparable, the contention of the assessee was that the said entity was a registered not-for-profit body of members representing advertisers, advertising agencies, publishers, and broadcast/other media with the objectives to ensure the periodic research made available to its constituents, for measuring effectiveness of media for advertising, research relevant to meet the industry’s increasing need for reliable and accurate information on all media, and timely and economic research for its users.

The Tribunal observed that the entity was completely involved in conducting surveys and in respect of requirement of its members, carried out a media research to understand the choice, test and preferences of people and these activities were actually identical to the activity being conducted by the assessee. On this premise, the CIT(A) reached a conclusion that this company was very much comparable on its FAR analysis with the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the source of income of the said entity was membership subscription etc. Was more than Rs. 2 crores out of the Rs. 2.64 crores of its income. The Tribunal opined that undoubtedly the entity was a not for profit body.

Non profit company not a comparable

On a careful consideration of the functions performed and other attendant factors, the Tribunal opined that a company registered as a not-for-profit body, lacking profit motive is not a comparable to the assessee and even the area of operation of the said entity was different from the assessee.

Therefore, the Tribunal held that the said entity was not a comparable and have to be excluded. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to exclude this company from the list of comparables to benchmark the international transaction.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

addition u/s 68 addition u/s 69A ca misconduct cash deposit in bank cbdt circular CBDT Instruction cbdt notification cbdt order cbdt press release cgst circular cgst notification cit revision 263 concealment penalty condonation of delay covid-19 custom circular demonetisation due date extension e-way bill faq GST circular GST Council Meeting gst faq gstn advisory GSTR-3B GST rates IBBI ibc income tax prosecution itat ITAT Delhi mca circular MCA notification order u/s 119 penalty 271(1)(c) penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Press Release reasons recorded reopening 148 Reopening us 147 Search & Seizure sebi circular unexplained cash credits validity of notice u/s 148 Withdrawal of 2000 500 Bank Notes

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Prior period income cannot be considered as income of the current year

When prior period expenses are not admissible as deduction, following the same principle the prior period income also cannot be…

4 hours ago
  • Income Tax

SC condoned delay of 972 days in filing appeal due to restructuring in Department

Supreme Court condoned delay of 972 days in filing appeal due to restructuring in Income Tax Department In a recent…

19 hours ago
  • Income Tax

No addition on mere valuation report when stamp duty valuation is available

Addition can not be made relying on the valuation report of property when the stamp duty valuation is also available…

23 hours ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT deleted penalty for making a wrong claim of deduction u/s 54F/54B

Wrong claim of deduction u/s 54F/54B was not a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars…

1 day ago
  • GST

Value of taxable supply and rates notified Pan Masala / tobacco products

CBIC notifies GST rates and value of taxable supply for Biris, Pan Masala / tobacco products  Ministry of Finance(Department of…

1 day ago
  • Excise/Custom

CBIC issues SOP for wearing Body Cam by Custom officers in Baggage Clearance

CBIC has issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) for wearing Body Cam by Custom officers responsible for Baggage Clearance According…

2 days ago