2016 (4) TMI 1211 - AT - Income Tax

TPA - selection of comparable - Held that - TNMM as most appropriate method and cost margin as a profit level indicator for the transferring pricing study. The assessee-company applied Transactional Net Margin Method TNMM which was considered to be the most appropriate method for purposes of bench marking the international transactions. The assessee-company s profit margin was computed at 16.25% in respect of software services segment and 15.73% in respect of ITeS segment. Companies dissimilar with that of assessee need to be excluded from final list of comparable. Deduction u/s 10A - Held that - We direct the AO to reduce telecommunication expenses from the export turnover as well as total turnover and allow the deduction u/s 10A accordingly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
2. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP).
3. Legality of fresh comparable search by TPO.
4. Comparability analysis for determining ALP.
5. Use of erroneous data by AO/TPO.
6. Non-allowance of appropriate adjustments by AO/TPO.
7. Variation of 5% from arithmetic mean.
8. Reduction in deduction under Section 10A.
9. Levy of interest under Section 234B.
10. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C).
11. Directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment and Reference to TPO:
- The assessee-company argued that the assessment order and reference to TPO were "bad on facts and in law," violating principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued under Section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reference to the TPO and the assessment order.

2. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP):
- The TPO made adjustments to the software development and IT-enabled services segments, determining transfer pricing adjustments of ?3,98,63,492 and ?1,86,46,103 respectively. The TPO accepted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) but rejected the assessee's transfer pricing study, identifying a different set of comparables.

3. Legality of Fresh Comparable Search by TPO:
- The TPO conducted a fresh benchmarking analysis using non-contemporaneous data and introduced additional comparable companies without giving the assessee an opportunity to make submissions. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh evaluation of certain companies with respect to functional aspects.

4. Comparability Analysis for Determining ALP:
- The Tribunal excluded several companies from the list of comparables due to functional dissimilarities, including Accel Transmatic Ltd., Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd., Celestial Biolabs Ltd., E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd., Ishir Infotech Ltd., KALS Information Systems Ltd., Lucid Software Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Quintegra Solutions Ltd., Thirdware Solution Ltd., and Wipro Ltd. The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude these companies from the list of comparables.

5. Use of Erroneous Data by AO/TPO:
- The AO/TPO used non-contemporaneous data, which was not available in the public domain at the time of the transfer pricing study by the assessee. The Tribunal found this to be erroneous.

6. Non-Allowance of Appropriate Adjustments by AO/TPO:
- The AO/TPO did not allow appropriate adjustments under Rule 10B to account for differences in accounting practices, marketing expenditure, research and development expenditure, and risk profile between the assessee and comparable companies.

7. Variation of 5% from Arithmetic Mean:
- The AO/TPO did not grant the benefits of the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, which allows for a variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant this benefit.

8. Reduction in Deduction under Section 10A:
- The AO reduced the amount of expenditure incurred on telecommunication from the export turnover but not from the total turnover. The Tribunal directed the AO to reduce the telecommunication expenses from both the export turnover and total turnover, following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi (349 ITR 98).

9. Levy of Interest under Section 234B:
- The AO levied interest under Section 234B of the Act amounting to ?14,708,020. The Tribunal did not provide specific directions on this issue.

10. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(C):
- The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. The Tribunal did not provide specific directions on this issue.

11. Directions Issued by the DRP:
- The DRP upheld the validity of the reference to the TPO and the adjustments made by the TPO. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, providing relief on several grounds.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal provided a detailed analysis of each issue raised by the assessee, granting relief on several grounds related to the determination of ALP, comparability analysis, and reduction in deduction under Section 10A. The appeal was partly allowed, and the AO was directed to make necessary adjustments as per the Tribunal's findings.