Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The other ground of appeal was regarding the rejection of data used by the assessee in determining the 'ALP' by the TPO and the Assessing Officer and also whether or not the payment made during the period 1.4.2001 to 12.12.2001 was in the nature of reimbursement of expenses. The assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the assessee had entered into a Transportation Recharge Agreement with TTI (erstwhile GDEW) effective from 1.4.2001 to 31.12.2001 which covers all the members of the TNT entities operating worldwide and as per this agreement, each member receives the revenue earned on consignments within its exports and is charged at costs by the group entities for all costs of handling, transportation and delivering those same consignments and standard rates are used for all types of net work costs by utilizing effective cost allocation model. The assessee claimed that the standard rates used in the calculation of allocation costs were adjusted using the 'Recast' activity based costing tool which ensured that all costs were being appropriately apportioned. The CIT(A) perused the transportation recharge agreement entered into between the appellant and GDEW and all members of the TNT Group and observed that this agreement takes effect from 1.4.2001 to 31.12.2001. However, she observed that what is extraordinary is the complete absence of any mention of a methodology or a formula or a basis for allocating such costs for purposes of reimbursement by GDEW and that there is no way of ascertaining whether there was any accuracy in the methodology for appropriating costs allegedly incurred by the appellant or that what the appellant was charging GDEW on account of line haul, delivery and clearance was purely costs incurred and did not contain any element of mark-up and on examining the transport recharge agreement between the assessee and the TNT Group, it was ascertained that it was in order to comply with the transfer pricing mechanism set out in the cost allocation and recharge report by M/s. KPMG for provision of TNT Network Services that this agreement was entered into and that the underlying objective of the TNT Group's Network Cost Allocation Systems as laid down in the Transport Recharge Agreement was basically to ensure that all inter-company transfer of services and cost allocations related to or in connection with the provision of network services, adhere to the 'ALP' as outlined in the OECD guidelines. From a plain reading of the clause D of the agreement, the CIT(A) observed that in the network cost allocation systems, the activities of a TNT group are classified as either "invoicer" or "partner" related and for each consignment that passes through TNT's net work, the 'invoicer' in the system is the TNT Group Member who contracts with the customers and receives the revenues and 'partner' activities are performed by the TNT Group and receives the revenues. The partner activities are performed by TNT Group Members on behalf of and for the risk and account of the invoicing TNT Group Members and include activities performed in connection with the pick up, transportation and delivery of consignments for risk of the 'invoicing' TNT Group member. He further observed that services that a partner gives to other TNT member include activities performed in connection with the back up, transportation and delivery of consignments. A TNT Group Member can perform functions that are both 'invoicer' as well as 'partner' related. Thus according to CIT(A), the invoicer reimburses other TNT Group Members for the partner related services in connection with the consignments on a full cost basis (inclusive of both direct and indirect costs) plus an appropriate profit mark-up and at no point of time were the so-called "mechanisms" set out by M/s. KPMG ever made available nor was the methodology or basis adopted by KPMG for cost allocation as laid out in its cost allocation and recharge report ever furnished before her. Therefore as no information was furnished by the assessee with regard to the system applied relating to in bound and out bound shipment that raised data processing charges, line haul charges, delivery charges, etc, and also due to lack of supporting documents to validate the assessee's claim as to the basis on which the assessee is expected to pay its holding company towards cost recharges and the claim of the payments being only reimbursements or only costs that are paid without the element of mark-up during the period 4.1.2001 to 31.12.2001. The CIT(A) held that the assessee's claim cannot be accepted. For coming to this conclusion, she placed reliance on the decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in the case of M/s Danfoss Industries (P) Ltd reported in 268 ITR 1 wherein it was held that the service fees payable by the applicant being an Indian entity of a foreign group company based on the portion of services it receives in relation to the total costs of that company in providing such services under the Service Agreement constituted consideration for availing services on the basis of allocation determinable on a proportional percentage of budget turnover weighted by growth rate and market maturity of the group company availing the services and any increase or short fall in the actual turnover would proportionately increase or decrease the portion of cost to be absorbed by the group company which avails services from the foreign company and it was further held that even assuming that the fees charged by the Singapore company to the applicant and similarly situated group companies is equivalent to the expenses incurred by it in providing the services and there is no profit element, it would then be a case of quid pro quo for the services fees and not of reimbursement of expenses and that the applicant was liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 from the payments made towards such service charges. Thus the CIT(A) held that the payment made by the group companies to other companies is in consideration of services rendered and it cannot be considered to fall under the category of reimbursement even if such payments are equivalent to cost.