2017 (2) TMI 1213 - AT - Income Tax

TPA - selection of comparable - applying turnover filter - Held that - Comparing with turnover filter of 1/10th or 10 times of the turnover of the assessee company, company dissimilar with that of assessee excluded from the list of final comparables.

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of certain companies as comparables based on size, turnover, and functional differences.
2. Exclusion of companies based on high-profit margins.
3. Rejection of diminishing revenue and different year-ending filters.
4. Employee cost filter application.
5. Deduction under Section 10A for unit-II.
6. Use of data at the time of assessment versus TP documentation.
7. Application of multiple year/prior year data.
8. Use of selective information by TPO.
9. Risk adjustment for limited risk nature of services.
10. Reimbursement of expenses and their treatment.
11. Research and development expenses filter.
12. Related party filter.
13. Export sales and onsite revenue filters.
14. Acceptance of certain companies as comparables.
15. One-time adjustment under AS-IS.
16. Recovery of FBT payment.
17. Correctness of arm’s length price adjustments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exclusion of Certain Companies as Comparables:
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Avani Cimcon Technologies, Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., Celestial Biolabs, Infosys Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., and Wipro Ltd. based on functional dissimilarities and turnover filters. However, it reversed the exclusion of iGate Global Solution Ltd., Mindtree Ltd., and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. as they met the turnover filter of 1/10th to 10 times the assessee’s turnover.

2. Exclusion Based on High-Profit Margins:
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Celestial Biolabs Ltd., citing consistency with previous Tribunal orders.

3. Rejection of Diminishing Revenue and Different Year-Ending Filters:
The Tribunal did not specifically address the rejection of these filters but focused on the turnover and functional filters for comparables.

4. Employee Cost Filter Application:
The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on the employee cost filter but upheld the decisions based on turnover and functional filters.

5. Deduction Under Section 10A for Unit-II:
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by previous Tribunal decisions for earlier assessment years. The grounds were raised only because the department had filed an appeal before the High Court.

6. Use of Data at the Time of Assessment versus TP Documentation:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis but focused on the comparables selected and excluded.

7. Application of Multiple Year/Prior Year Data:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s approach of using current year data for comparability.

8. Use of Selective Information by TPO:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis.

9. Risk Adjustment for Limited Risk Nature of Services:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis.

10. Reimbursement of Expenses and Their Treatment:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis.

11. Research and Development Expenses Filter:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis.

12. Related Party Filter:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis.

13. Export Sales and Onsite Revenue Filters:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis.

14. Acceptance of Certain Companies as Comparables:
The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of iGate Global Solution Ltd., Mindtree Ltd., and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. It directed the exclusion of e-Zest Solutions Ltd. and Indus Networks Ltd. and restored the issue of Softsol India Ltd. to the AO/TPO for verification of RPT percentage.

15. One-Time Adjustment Under AS-IS:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis.

16. Recovery of FBT Payment:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis.

17. Correctness of Arm’s Length Price Adjustments:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order with modifications based on the turnover and functional filters for comparables.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee, making specific inclusions and exclusions of comparables based on turnover and functional filters, and restoring certain issues to the AO/TPO for further verification.

← Previous Next →