India vs Kellogg India Private Limited, February 2022, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Mumbai, Case NoITA No. 7342/Mum/2018

Posted on | By Courts of India | No comments
Category: Sales and Marketing Hubs, Transfer Pricing Methods | Tag: , , , , , , , , , , ,
« | »

Kellogg India Private Limited is engaged in manufacturing and sales of breakfast cereals and convenience foods and it operates as a licensed manufacturer under the Kellogg brand.

During the year under consideration, Kellogg India had commenced business of distributing Pringles products in the Indian markets. Kellogg India purchases the pringles product from its AE Pringles International Operations SARL, based in Singapore. Singapore AE does not manufacture pringles, but in turn gets it manufactured from a third party contract manufacturer. Thereafter, the goods are supplied at a cost plus mark up of 5% on third party manufacturer’s cost. These Pringles are later imported by Kellogg India from its AE and distributed in the Indian market.

Kellogg India characterised itself as a distributor of Pringles products and is responsible for the strategic and overall management of Pringles business in India. Singapore AE, being the least complex entity, was selected as the tested party for benchmarking the international transaction of import of finished goods. Kellogg India conducted a search in the Asia Pacific region to identify manufacturers and based on benchmarking analysis carried out, an arithmetic mean of 14 comparable companies with Gross Profit / Direct and Indirect Cost as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) was determined at 50.07%.

The tax authorities disregarded the benchmarking approach adopted by Kellogg India and instead selected the Indian entity as the tested party. The Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was chosen as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for the transaction and based on 8 comparable companies the arm’s length profit margin was determined at 4.33%. Singapore AE was rejected as tested party by the tax authorities on the ground that the financial details of the company and the foreign comparables were not available.

Judgement of the Tax Appellate Tribunal

The Tribunal decided in favor of Kellogg India and set aside the assessment.

Excerpt
“In view of the aforesaid observations, we hold that Singapore AE should be considered as the tested party, being the least complex entity, in the facts and circumstances of the case, which has been rightly done by the assessee. Hence no adjustment to ALP is required to be made. Even if the comparables chosen by the ld TPO are considered, undisputably since the assessee is only engaged in purchase and resale of goods without any substantial value addition thereon, RPM would be the MAM and in case of RPM only the gross margins are to be compared. We find that gross margins of assessee are much more than the gross margins of comparable companies chosen by the ld TPO. Hence no adjustment to ALP is to be made in respect of import of finished goods even if the comparable companies chosen by the ld TPO are upheld. Hence we hold that no adjustment to ALP is required to be made in the instant case in respect of import of finished goods in either case. Accordingly, the said adjustment of Rs 1,31,60,199/- is hereby directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the Additional Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.”

1645003721-ITA No.7342-2018 Kellogg India P. Ltd.,

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.22 Where the most appropriate transfer pricing method in the circumstances of the case, determined following the guidance at paragraphs 2.1-2.12, is a one-sided method, financial information on the tested party is needed in addition to the information referred to in paragraph 3.20 – irrespective of whether the tested party is...
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.198 In a transfer pricing analysis where the most appropriate transfer pricing method is the resale price method, the cost-plus method, or the transactional net margin method, the less complex of the parties to the controlled transaction is often selected as the tested party. In many cases, an arm’s length price...
TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 14 74. Below are some illustrations of the effect of choosing a measure of profits to determine the relevant profits to be split when applying a transactional profit split Scenario 1 74. Assume A and B are two associated enterprises situated in two different tax jurisdictions. Both manufacture the same widgets...
TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 7 34. Company L, a resident of Country L, and Company M, a resident of Country M, are part of an MNE group, LM Corporation. Companies L and M offer international trade facilitation, freight forwarding and customs broking services to unrelated customers. Together, Companies L and M, provide customers with services...
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.200 It is important to note, however, that in many cases where the tested party uses such intangibles, parties to comparable uncontrolled transactions will also have the same types of intangibles at their disposal. Thus, in the distribution company case, an uncontrolled entity engaged in providing distribution services in the tested...
OECD COVID-19 TPG paragraph 86 Finally, when applying a one-sided method such as the resale price method, the cost plus method, or the TNMM, the accounting treatment of the government assistance in both the tested party and any comparable may need to be specifically identified, especially when the tested party and the comparables apply different...
TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.76 The use of net profit indicators can potentially introduce a greater element of volatility into the determination of transfer prices for two reasons. First, net profit indicators can be influenced by some factors that do not have an effect (or have a less substantial or direct effect) on gross margins...
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.201 Where the tested party and the potential comparable have comparable intangibles, the intangibles will not constitute unique and valuable intangibles within the meaning of paragraph 6.17, and therefore no comparability adjustments will be required with regard to the intangibles. The potential comparable will, in these circumstances, provide the best evidence...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 10 30. The facts in this example are the same as in Example 9, except that the market development functions undertaken by Company S in this Example 10 are far more extensive than those undertaken by Company S in Example 9. 31. Where the marketer/distributor actually bears the costs and assumes...
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.206 The principles described in Sections D.2.1 to D.2.4 of this chapter should be applied in determining whether the use of intangibles by the tested party will preclude reliance on identified comparable uncontrolled transactions or require comparability adjustments. Only when the intangibles used by the tested party are unique and valuable...

Leave a Reply

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