Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jabil Circuit India Private Limited Reliance has merely been placed on OECD guidelines. That these would be inappropriate and instead CUP method for the service would be appropriate. Thereafter the dispute admission panel referred to the finding of the transfer pricing officer and the case law relied upon by him. The dispute resolution panel observed that intercompany services agreement submitted by the assessee was very general/generic in nature and lacks any specific details pertaining to the services provided by any AE to the assessee. That even the parties to the agreement are not mentioned by the names. For that the agreement states that services are detailed more specifically in the addenda to the agreement. But it noted that in the addenda there is mere listing of nomenclature of different services and does not contain any specific details about any services. The dispute resolution panel went on to find errors in the drafting of the agreement. It noted that even the addendum has not been signed by any of the contracting parties. It noted that at the end of the addendum it has been mentioned that documentation and supporting records will be retained by the billing entity. That the supporting records will be made available to the fiscal authorities upon request. But it noted that assessee has failed to make these documentation available to the TPO. Therefore it held that the evidence submitted by the assessee is hardly of any evidentiary value in support of the services rendered by the assessee from its associated enterprises. It further noted that assessee has not furnished information regarding costs incurred by associated enterprise in providing the services. It noted that instead of submitting all the evidence for support of its claim for having availed the services, the assessee has contended that they are voluminous in nature and they are often captured internally on software is. It noted that assessee has submitted a Jabil Circuit India Private Limited CPA certificate. It noted that the said certificate furnished has no basis for determining the name and number of employees identified for rendering the service to Indian entity. That further the nature and details of the IT services claimed to have been rendered to the assessee have not been certified by the CPA. It noted that the assessee failed to identify the employees who were providing the services along with the qualification experience etc. It noted that the evidence furnished by the assessee before the panel in respect of cost allocation key are vague. It further noted that in respect of IT services claimed to have been rendered by the, associated enterprise and availed by the assessee no evidence for a specific IT services availed by the assessee has been produced. It proceeded to hold that it cannot be assumed that simple submissions of screenshots is sufficient to prove that the IT services rendered by associated enterprise to the assessee are at arm's length. It noted that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained what the actual services received from the associated price.

17. As regards the claim for corporate cost allocation in respect of non-IT services the DRP has rejected the assessee's objection in this regard and upheld application of CUP method. The dispute resolution panel concluded that assessee has failed to demonstrate that it has received services or that the benefit from such services as claimed. It noted that the CPA certificate is not backed by any concrete evidence. It observed as under:

5.26 In relation to the IT services, detailed breaked up of expenses claimed by the AE for allocation purposes has not been produced. Therefore, it is not known whether the expense has been incurred by the AE or not or whether the expense incurred include certain capital expenses, etc. The appellant has also not furnished the details of the login hours of its employees recorded in the system of the AE to show that the system facilities have been used by the assessee. Even the payment Jabil Circuit India Private Limited made for each of the service including the IT service has not been provided separately. On the basis of evidence produced, we are of the view that the appellant would have received some services for which TPO has already allowed the deduction for 1500 hours at the rate of Rs.8,500 per hour. We are of the opinion that the number of hours of services and the per hour rate of the services estimated by the Transfer Pricing Officer are adequate considering the facts of the case.

26. Upon careful consideration, we note that the issue in dispute is the allocation of intra group services to be borne by the assessee from its AE in 16 worldwide localities. The assessee's allocation is based upon a global agreement between the AEs in this regard. Various allocation keys, i.e., asset, revenue, number of employee, depending upon the nature has been used. The allocation is supported by a CPA certificate. The Revenue's grouse is that necessary evidence in this regard for the veracity of allocation and incurring of expenditure has not been submitted. That the CPA certificate is not credible in absence of supporting documents on the basis of which the said certificate was issued. That there are several errors in the global agreement. That the use of allocation keys is not permissible.

28. We note that it is the claim of the assessee that the assessee has intra group AEs spread around the length and breadth of the globe. It has been claimed that the intra group services have been allocated on the basis of global agreement among the AEs. Proper allocation keys have been used and that the methodology adopted has the mandate of guiding of the OECD. In this regard, we note that in the OECD guidelines in the Chapter VII relating to special consideration for intra group services has observed that mainly two issues were to be considered, one was whether intra group service have in fact been provided. The other issue is whether the intra group charge for such services for tax purpose should be in accordance with the arms length principle. The OECD guidelines interalia also provide that the allocation of the group cost might be based upon the turnover or staff employed or some other basis. It mentioned that whether the allocation method is appropriate may depend upon the nature and use of the services. A reading of this OECD guidelines makes it abundantly clear that contrary to the Revenue's argument, the using of allocation keys for allocation of intra group services is not alien to international tax jurisprudence. Further, the allocation of concerned group expenses to different accounting units is a duly accepted accounting procedure. Furthermore, the assessee has used a CPA certificate for the allocation of intra group services from the AE. The authorities below have rejected the CPA certificate on the ground that underlying documents on the basis of which the CPA certificate has been issued has not been Jabil Circuit India Private Limited produced before them. In this regard, we note that the CPA certificate is quite specific and has been duly authenticated. We find that in Rule 10D, containing information and documents to be kept and maintained u/s.92D it has been duly mentioned that the information's required under Rule 10D(2)(A) shall be supported by authentic documents which may include inter alia public accounts and the financial statements relating to the business of the associated enterprises. Hence, the evidence for international transaction can be duly supported by public accounts and financial statements relating to business affairs of the AE. With such mandate of law, in our considered opinion, the action of the authorities below in rejecting the CPA certificate is not sustainable. The various other proposition mentioned by the ld. Counsel of the assessee and case laws in support thereof as noted in para 22 hereinabove are germane and duly support the case of the assessee.