M/S INGERSOLL RAND INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found a potential flaw in the TPO's approach of clubbing expenses from unrelated segments. It held that the issue of whether expenses in the Residential Solutions segment were connected to the AE segment was crucial and needed fresh examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in providing sourcing support services, had two business segments: Global Supply and Residential Solutions. The TPO clubbed expenses from the Residential Solutions segment into the Global Supply segment, arguing expenses were shifted without income generation. This led to a transfer pricing adjustment.
What were the issues?
Whether the TPO was justified in clubbing expenses from a non-AE segment with an AE segment for transfer pricing adjustment. The core issue is the correct determination of the operating cost for the AE segment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN
PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the assessment order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for assessment year 2012-13 in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
The grounds urged by the assessee relates to addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment.
IT(TP)A No.730/Bang/2017 M/s. Ingersoll-Rand International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
Page 2 of 4 3. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing “Sourcing support services” to the group companies to facilitate sourcing of goods from India. He further submitted that, in the earlier years, the assessee was operating four business segments, viz., Software, IT enabled Security technologies, Global Supply and Residential solutions. He submitted that there was a de-merger and consequent thereto the assessee got only two segments viz., “Global Supply sourcing services segment” and “Residential solutions segment”. During the year under consideration, the assessee has operated the above said two segments only. The Ld A.R submitted that the AE transactions are confined to Global supply segment only. The transactions in ‘Residential solutions’ segment is with non-AEs only.
The Ld AR submitted that the assessee furnished segmental results before TPO. During the year under consideration, the assessee did not generate any income in ‘Residential solutions’ segment, but was constrained to incur expenses. On examination of segmental results, the TPO took the view that the assessee has shifted expenses to ‘residential solutions’ segment without showing any income. Accordingly, he took the view that the assessee has inflated the profits of ‘Global Supply sourcing services’ segment. The assessee had shown operating expenses under “Global Supply Sourcing Services” at Rs.2,57,82,021/-. The TPO computed operating expenses of the above said segment at Rs.3,85,12,956/- by clubbing expenses incurred in ‘residential solutions’ segment.
The TPO also rejected the Transfer pricing study conducted by the assessee. Accordingly, the TPO selected six comparable companies, whose average margin (OP/OC) was 14.72%. Adopting the said margin and the operating cost at Rs.3,85,12,956/-, the TPO
IT(TP)A No.730/Bang/2017 M/s. Ingersoll-Rand International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
Page 3 of 4 proposed adjustment of Rs.2,43,07,700/-. After the order passed by Ld DRP, the TP adjustment was scaled down to Rs.1,33,70,021/-. The AO completed the assessment by making addition of above said amount of Rs.1,33,70,021/- towards transfer pricing adjustment.
The Ld A.R submitted that the Global supply Sourcing services segment is having transactions with its AEs. However, the other segment, viz., Residential solutions’ does not having transactions with any of its AE, i.e., it has carried out transactions with non-AE only. He submitted that the TPO has not taken cognizance of this aspect and has accordingly combined financials of both the segments. He further submitted that the expenses incurred in ‘residential solutions’ are in no way connected to the business carried on in Global supply sourcing services segment. He further submitted that the assessee is operating under “cost plus mark-up” model and hence, there is no incentive for the assessee in shifting the expenses to other segments. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that this lacuna would go to the root of the matter and accordingly he prayed that the entire issue relating to transfer pricing adjustment may be restored to the file of AO/TPO for carrying out Transfer pricing exercise afresh.
We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. It is the submission of Ld A.R that the expenses incurred in ‘residential solutions’ segment are not connected with the AE segment. It is the contention of Ld A.R that the TPO has missed out this important aspect and accordingly he was not justified in clubbing expenses incurred in both the segments. He has also submitted that the assessee is operating under “cost plus mark-up” model and hence, there is no incentive for the assessee in shifting the expenses to other segments. Accordingly, we are of the view that there may be a flaw in the IT(TP)A No.730/Bang/2017 M/s. Ingersoll-Rand International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
Page 4 of 4 approach of the TPO. There should not be any dispute that the responsibility to prove that the expenses incurred in ‘residential solutions’ segment are not connected to the AE segment would lie upon the assessee. Since this issue goes to the root of the matter, we find merit in the prayer of Ld A.R. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the AO in respect of addition relating to Transfer pricing adjustment and restore all the contentions to the file of AO/TPO for carrying out transfer pricing examination exercise afresh. Since the entire matter is restored, the issues agitated on comparable companies are also left open and the assessee is free so agitate them before the appropriate authorities.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Mar, 2022.
More judgments on Section 144C(13)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 486/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 498/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026