TRANSFER PRICING – COMPUTATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE – CLARIFICATIONS ON FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF DEVELOPMENT CENTERS ENGAGED IN CONTRACT R&D SERVICES WITH INSIGNIFICANT RISK – CONDITIONS RELEVANT TO IDENTIFY SUCH DEVELOPMENT CENTERS – AMENDMENT OF CIRCULAR NO. 3/2013, DATED 26-3-2013 CIRCULAR NO.06/2013 [F NO. 500/139/2012], DATED 29-6-2013

SECTION 92C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 – TRANSFER PRICING – COMPUTATION OF ARM’S LENGTH PRICE – CLARIFICATIONS ON FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF DEVELOPMENT CENTERS ENGAGED IN CONTRACT R&D SERVICES WITH INSIGNIFICANT RISK – CONDITIONS RELEVANT TO IDENTIFY SUCH DEVELOPMENT CENTERS – AMENDMENT OF CIRCULAR NO. 3/2013, DATED 26-3-2013

CIRCULAR NO.06/2013 [F NO. 500/139/2012], DATED 29-6-2013

It has been brought to the notice of CBDT that there is divergence of views amongst the field officers and taxpayers regarding the functional profile of development centres engaged in contract R&D services for the purposes of determining arm’s length price/transfer pricing. In some cases, while taxpayers insist that they are contract R&D service providers with insignificant risk, the TPOs treat them as full or significant risk-bearing entities and make transfer pricing adjustments accordingly. The issue has been examined in the CBDT.

The Research and Development Centres set up by foreign companies can be classified into three broad categories based on functions, assets and risk assumed by the centre established in India. These are:

1.

Centres which are entrepreneurial in nature;

2.

Centres which are based on cost-sharing arrangements; and

3.

Centres which undertake contract research and development.

While the three categories are not water-tight compartments, it is possible to distinguish them based on functions, assets and risk. It will be obvious that in the first case the Development Centre performs significantly important functions and assumes substantial risks. In the third case, it will be obvious that the functions, assets and risk are minimal. The second case falls between the first and the third cases.

More often than not, the assessee claims that the Development Centre in India must be treated as a contract R&D service provider with insignificant risk. Consequently, the assessee claims that in such cases the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) must be adopted as the most appropriate method.

The CBDT has carefully considered the matter and lays down the following guidelines for identifying the Development Centre as a contract R&D service provider with insignificant risk.

1.

Foreign principal performs most of the economically significant functions involved in research or product development cycle either through its own employees or through its associated enterprises while the Indian Development Centre carries out the work assigned to it by the foreign principal. Economically significant functions would include critical functions such as conceptualization and design of the product and providing the strategic direction and framework;

2.

The foreign principal or its associated enterprise(s) provides funds/capital and other economically significant assets including intangibles for research or product development. The foreign principal or its associated enterprise(s) also provides a remuneration to the Indian Development Centre for the work carried out by the latter;

3.

The Indian Development Centre works under the direct supervision of the foreign principal or its associated enterprise which has not only the capability to control or supervise but also actually controls or supervises research or product development through its strategic decisions to perform core functions as well as monitor activities on regular basis;

4.

The Indian Development Centre does not assume or has no economically significant realized risks. If a contract shows that the foreign principal is obligated to control the risk but the conduct shows that the Indian Development Centre is doing so, then the contractual terms are not the final determinant of actual activities;

5.

In the case of a foreign principal being located in a country/territory widely perceived as a low or no tax jurisdiction, it will be presumed that the foreign principal is not controlling the risk. However, the Indian Development Centre may rebut this presumption to the satisfaction of the revenue authorities. Low tax jurisdiction shall mean any country or territory notified in this behalf under section 94A of the Act or any other country or territory that may be notified for the purpose of Chapter X of the Act;

6.

Indian Development Centre has no ownership right (legal or economic) on the outcome of the research which vests with the foreign principal and that this is evident from the contract as well as from the conduct of the parties.

The Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall have regard to the guidelines above and shall take a decision based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be guided by the conduct of the parties and not merely by the terms of the contract.

The Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall bear in mind the provisions of section 92C of the Act and Rule 10A to Rule 10C of the Rules. He shall also apply the guidelines enumerated above and select the ‘most appropriate method’.

The above may be brought to the notice of all concerned.

Reference: Section 92 of the income Tax Act, 1961

Computation of arm’s length price.

 (1) The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction 81[or specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe82, namely :—

(a)  comparable uncontrolled price method;

(b)  resale price method;

(c)  cost plus method;

(d)  profit split method;

(e)  transactional net margin method;

(f)  such other method as may be prescribed83 by the Board.

(2) The most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (1) shall be applied, for determination of arm’s length price, in the manner as may be prescribed84 :

85[Provided that where more than one price is determined by the most appropriate method, the arm’s length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices:

Provided further that if the variation between the arm’s length price so determined and price at which the international transaction 86[or specified domestic transaction] has actually been undertaken does not exceed 87[such percentage 88[not exceeding three per cent] of the latter, as may be notified88a by the Central Government in the Official Gazette in this behalf], the price at which the international transaction 86[or specified domestic transaction] has actually been undertaken shall be deemed to be the arm’s length price.]

89[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of the second proviso shall also be applicable to all assessment or reassessment proceedings pending before an Assessing Officer as on the 1st day of October, 2009.]

90[(2A) Where the first proviso to sub-section (2) as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 (33 of 2009), is applicable in respect of an international transaction for an assessment year and the variation between the arithmetical mean referred to in the said proviso and the price at which such transaction has actually been undertaken exceeds five per cent of the arithmetical mean, then, the assessee shall not be entitled to exercise the option as referred to in the said proviso.]

91[(2B) Nothing contained in sub-section (2A) shall empower the Assessing Officer either to assess or reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October, 2009.]

(3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income, the Assessing Officer is, on the basis of material or information or document in his possession, of the opinion that—

(a)  the price charged or paid in an international transaction 92[or specified domestic transaction] has not been determined in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2); or

(b)  any information and document relating to an international transaction 92[or specified domestic transaction] have not been kept and maintained by the assessee in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 92D and the rules made in this behalf; or

(c)  the information or data used in computation of the arm’s length price is not reliable or correct; or

(d)  the assessee has failed to furnish, within the specified time, any information or document which he was required to furnish by a notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 92D,

the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction 92[or specified domestic transaction] in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:

Provided that an opportunity shall be given by the Assessing Officer by serving a notice calling upon the assessee to show cause, on a date and time to be specified in the notice, why the arm’s length price should not be so determined on the basis of material or information or document in the possession of the Assessing Officer.

(4) Where an arm’s length price is determined by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm’s length price so determined :

Provided that no deduction under section 10A 93[or section 10AA] or section 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed in respect of the amount of income by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced after computation of income under this sub-section :

Provided further that where the total income of an associated enterprise is computed under this sub-section on determination of the arm’s length price paid to another associated enterprise from which tax has been deducted 94[or was deductible] under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB, the income of the other associated enterprise shall not be recomputed by reason of such determination of arm’s length price in the case of the first mentioned enterprise.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *