7. ALP – International transaction – Sections 92 and 92C – R. 10B of I. T. Rules 1962 – A. Y. 2008-09 – Comparables accepted for earlier years excluded – Onus on Department to justify exclusion –

CIT vs. Welspun Zucchi
Textiles Ltd.; 391 ITR 211 (Bom):

The assessee was in export
business and entered into international transactions with its associated
enterprises. The assessee determined arm’s length price of exports to its
associated enterprises for the  A. Y.
2008-09, by benchmarking the price of exports of comparable companies, SEL and
VTI which had been accepted as comparables for the earlier assessment years.
Accordingly, no transfer pricing adjustment was made by the assessee. The
Transfer Pricing Officer while determining arm’s length price excluded two
companies SEL and VTI without assigning any reasons and enhanced the price of
exports made by the assessee to its associated enterprises. The Assessing
Officer in terms of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer enhanced the
income on account of international transactions and passed an order. The
Tribunal held that the exclusion of the two companies was not justified.

On appeal by the Revenue,
the Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) If the
Department was of the view that only because of the losses of the assessment
year in question the two companies were not comparable, further examination or
enquiry ought to have been done by it to find out whether loss was a symptom of
the reference points in Rule 10B(2) of the Rules making them non-comparable. It
was more so as the Department did not dispute that otherwise the two companies
were comparables to the assessee even on the parameters laid down in Rule
10B(2).

ii)  Therefore,
if the Department sought to discard the two companies SEL and VTI from the
comparables for the assessment year in question, the onus was upon the
Department to justify it. A finding has been recorded that the Department had
not shown that the two companies were consistently loss making companies, which
required examination to ascertain if it was hit by one of the reference points
mentioned in Rule 10B(2).

iii)  The
Department itself has accepted the companies SEL and VTI as comparables for the
earlier assessment years. The appeal is dismissed.”