2016 (4) TMI 1221 - AT - Income Tax

TPA - comparable selection - Held that - Companies into software development need to selected as final comparable similar as that to assessee. Companies need to be deselected on the basis of functional dissimilarities with that of assessee which is involved in providing software services. The event of merger itself cannot a factor for exclusion of the company from the list of comparables also when the malgamated company is also engaged in the same business as that of the assessee-company. Denial of relief u/s 10A in respect of recruitment fees earned - Held that - CIT(A) correctly upheld the action of the AO in denying deduction u/s 10A in respect of recruitment fees placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT 2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT held that a receipt should have direct nexus with export activity, to be eligible for a deduction u/s 10A(1) read with section 10A(4) of the Act. As considered the facts and circumstances of the case and find that the receipts on account of recruitment fees, interest and miscellaneous activity do not have any nexus, whatsoever with the activity of export of computer software. As such they cannot be treated as part of business profits in the computation of deduction u/s/10A - Decided against assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reference to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)
2. Selection of comparable entities for determining Arm’s Length Price (ALP)
3. Methodology and filters applied by TPO
4. Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act
5. Treatment of certain incomes and expenses for deduction purposes

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reference to TPO:
The assessee-company contended that the reference made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the TPO was invalid. However, the CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reference, affirming the TPO's jurisdiction to examine the transfer pricing study conducted by the assessee.

2. Selection of Comparable Entities for Determining ALP:
The assessee-company initially selected 18 comparables with an average profit margin of 9.73%, claiming its transactions were at arm's length. The TPO rejected 15 of these comparables, introducing 14 new ones and applying specific filters. The TPO's final set of comparables had an average profit margin of 26.59%, leading to a transfer pricing adjustment of ?14,87,14,525.

3. Methodology and Filters Applied by TPO:
The TPO applied several filters, including:
- Use of current year data only
- Turnover filter (excluding companies with income from software development services less than ?1 crore)
- Exclusion of companies with related party transactions greater than 25% of sales
- Exclusion of companies with diminishing revenue or persistent operating loss

The CIT(A) upheld most of the TPO's actions but excluded companies like Infosys, Satyam Computer Services, and L&T Infotech based on turnover filters and functional dissimilarity. The Tribunal further examined the inclusion/exclusion of specific companies, such as Bodhtree Consulting, Exensys Software Solutions, Flextronics Software Systems, Geometric Software Solutions, Sankhya Infotech, Tata Elxsi, and Thirdware Solutions, based on functional similarity and other criteria.

4. Deduction Under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act:
The AO denied the deduction under Section 10A for certain incomes and expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision to exclude income from human resource services, telecom expenses for software delivery, and other incomes like interest from the profits of the business for computing the deduction. The CIT(A) also ruled that telecommunication expenses should be reduced from both export turnover and total turnover, in line with the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98).

5. Treatment of Certain Incomes and Expenses for Deduction Purposes:
The Tribunal addressed the treatment of recruitment fees, interest income, and miscellaneous income concerning Section 10A deductions. The CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to exclude these incomes from the business profits, citing a lack of direct nexus with the export activity.

Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges:
The Tribunal's order was delivered by INTURI RAMA RAO, AM, and SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM, as a unified judgment without separate opinions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of both the assessee-company and the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the TPO's methodology and inclusion/exclusion of certain comparables while directing specific exclusions based on functional dissimilarity. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the validity of the TPO reference, the treatment of specific incomes and expenses for Section 10A deductions, and the reduction of telecommunication expenses from both export and total turnover.

← Previous Next →