9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1233 - HC - Income TaxTPA - whether Tribunal is wrong in concluding that M/s.Vishal Information Technology Limited cannot be considered as a comparable case? - Held that - M/s.Vishal Information Technologies cannot be considered as a comparable case as this company was rejected by coordinate Bench while deciding similar issue in the case of M/s.Brigade Global Services Pvt. Ltd 2014 (9) TMI 143 - ITAT HYDERABAD as held the employee s cost to total cost ratio is worked out at 2% as compared to the industry average of 30 to 40%. The assessee s employee s cost to total cost ratio is worked out at 47%. Since the employee s cost form major cost base in ITES service industries the low ratio of comparables implies that it would not be providing services by employing its own sources. Being so the assessee is not alike to M/s.Vishal Information Technologies Ltd.Tribunal is not wrong in deciding the issue maintaining the rule of consistency. Consider profit before depreciation and interest (PBDIT) as profit level indicator as directed by ITAT - Held that - Tribunal on fact found that the depreciation has an impact on the profit margin. Based on the aforesaid findings we feel that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal does not appear to be unjust and inappropriate.
Issues:
1. Exclusion of comparables with super normal profit under Indian Transfer Pricing regulations. 2. Exclusion of a company as comparable due to lower employee cost. 3. Consideration of profit before depreciation and interest (PBDIT) as a profit level indicator. Issue 1: Exclusion of comparables with super normal profit under Indian Transfer Pricing regulations The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's judgment regarding the assessment year 2005-06. The first question of law raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in rejecting comparables with super normal profit, despite Indian Transfer Pricing regulations prescribing the use of arithmetic mean. The Tribunal had excluded M/s.Vishal Information Technology Ltd. as a comparable because of its abnormal profit margin. The Chief Justice upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing consistency with a previous case where the same company was rejected for having a significantly lower employee cost ratio compared to the industry average. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in such decisions to ensure fairness and compliance with regulations. Issue 2: Exclusion of a company as comparable due to lower employee cost The second question of law focused on the exclusion of M/s.Vishal Information Technology Ltd. as a comparable due to its lower employee cost compared to the industry average. The Tribunal's decision was based on the reasoning that the low employee cost ratio implied that the company might not be providing services using its own resources. This decision was supported by findings from a previous case involving the same company, where the Tribunal had similarly excluded it from comparables. The Chief Justice agreed with the Tribunal's stance, highlighting the significance of maintaining consistency in such determinations to ensure the integrity of the assessment process. Issue 3: Consideration of profit before depreciation and interest (PBDIT) as a profit level indicator The third issue raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the consideration of profit before depreciation and interest (PBDIT) as a profit level indicator. The Tribunal had found that depreciation significantly impacted profit margins. The Chief Justice, after reviewing the facts and circumstances, concluded that the Tribunal's decision on this matter was reasonable and appropriate. The judgment acknowledged the Tribunal's factual findings and upheld the use of PBDIT as a relevant indicator for assessing profitability in the given context. In conclusion, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, upholding the Tribunal's judgment on all three issues raised. The judgment emphasized the importance of consistency in decisions related to the exclusion of comparables and the consideration of relevant indicators for assessing profitability in transfer pricing cases.
|
