“aggregation of transactions”
The decision most relied on for aggregation of transactions is UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT (121 ITD 131), cited in 70 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on aggregation of transactions
For transfer pricing purposes, distinct international transactions, such as royalty payments and manufacturing, should be benchmarked separately rather than aggregated. The selection of comparables must be based on a thorough Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) analysis, and loss-making entities are not automatically excluded if they satisfy other comparability criteria.
When transactions are part of a package deal with a composite price or are interdependent such that an assessee must accept all of them together, they must be aggregated and treated as a single international transaction for transfer pricing purposes.
The aggregate of business profits and losses from derivative transactions must be worked out before applying the Explanation to Section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This means that trading of shares and derivative transactions are not considered speculative transactions under Section 43(5) for the purposes of Sections 28 to 41.
When analyzing international transactions, separate classes of transactions, such as fees for technical know-how, use of trademarks, and procurement, must be analyzed individually, as each impacts profits. Aggregation of such transactions is not permissible.
Closely linked transactions between associated enterprises can be aggregated and treated as a single transaction for the purpose of determining the arm's length price, with the appropriate method then applied to this composite transaction.
The Assessing Officer may determine the arm's length price (ALP) of an international transaction, including aggregated advertising and marketing promotion (AMP) expenses, in light of the Special Bench decision in LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT.