9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1226 - HC - Income TaxClaim of deductions under Section 10A - whether the deduction should be allowed to the Assessee under Section 10A, on the ground that it is indeed entitled to the benefit under the particular provision? - Held that - The assessee is involved in providing back office support and thereby entitled to the benefit under the definition of the term computer software . Its activities are in the nature of data processing, customization of data, acting as the back office of the parent company and acting as support center to the parent company. Clearly it could not have been deprived of the benefit of Section 10A, as is argued by the revenue. This contention is accordingly rejected as unmerited. - Decided in favour of assessee Transfer pricing adjustment - selection of comparable - Held that - If the comparable is functionally same as that of tested party then same cannot be rejected merely on the ground that data for entire financial year is not available. If from the available data on record, the results for financial year can reasonably be extrapolated then the comparable cannot be excluded solely on the ground that the comparables have different financial year endings.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments and Arm's Length Price (ALP) determination. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue was whether the Assessee was entitled to deductions under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee, a wholly-owned subsidiary of McKinsey Holdings Inc., provided IT-enabled services and claimed deductions under Section 10A, which the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed. The ITAT, however, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the deductions. - Nature of Services: The Assessee was engaged in providing support services, including data processing, customization of data, and back-office operations, which were deemed to fall under the expanded definition of "computer software" as per Explanation 2, Section 10A of the Act. The ITAT noted that the Assessee's services added value through networked software, thus qualifying for the deduction. - Consistency Principle: The ITAT applied the principle of consistency, noting that similar deductions had been allowed in previous assessment years (AYs) 2002-03 to 2005-06. The ITAT emphasized that there had been no change in the facts or circumstances of the case. - CBDT Notification: The ITAT and the court referred to the CBDT notification, which included IT-enabled services like data processing and back-office operations under the definition of "computer software." The court cited CIT v. M.L. Outsourcing Services (P) Limited, which upheld similar deductions under Section 10A. - Legal Precedents: The court noted that the AO's reliance on certain Supreme Court decisions was misplaced, as the Assessee's services were indeed IT-enabled and thus eligible for the deduction. 2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments and Arm's Length Price (ALP) Determination: The second issue revolved around the Transfer Pricing adjustments made by the AO, which were later reversed by the CIT(A) and upheld by the ITAT. - Comparable Companies: The TPO had rejected four comparable companies (Fortune Infotech Ltd., Kirloskar Computer Services Ltd., Mercury Outsourcing Management Ltd., and Genesis International Corporation Ltd.) based on various grounds, including different financial year endings, turnover less than Rs. 1 crore, and negative growth. - ITAT's Findings: - Fortune Infotech Ltd.: The ITAT held that a different financial year ending should not be a ground for rejection if the comparable is functionally similar. - Kirloskar Computer Services Ltd. and Mercury Outsourcing Management Ltd.: The ITAT found that rejecting these companies based on turnover less than Rs. 1 crore was inconsistent, as companies with higher turnovers were not similarly rejected. - Genesis International Corporation Ltd.: The ITAT disagreed with the TPO's rejection based on alleged negative growth, noting that the company's annual report showed considerable income growth. - Legal Provisions: The court referred to Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, emphasizing that functional similarity and elimination of material differences are crucial in ALP determination. The ITAT's acceptance of the comparables was deemed appropriate. Conclusion: The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the ITAT's decision to allow the Assessee's deductions under Section 10A and uphold the CIT(A)'s reversal of the Transfer Pricing adjustments. The court found that the Assessee's services qualified as IT-enabled, and the comparables rejected by the TPO were rightly included by the ITAT. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
