9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1222 - AT - Income TaxTPO - comparability - Held that - Broad comparability of a fairly large number of comparable companies can further ensure that minor variations if any are offset by taking a fairly large sample. Any major impact of their FAR on their net profitability if still so warranted on facts can be addressed by carrying out appropriate adjustments the need for which has to be demonstrated on the basis of record so as to bring their FAR in alignment with that of the tested party i.e. the assessee. The Rules moreover permit adjustments in the comparables selected if it can be demonstrated that these would impact the profitability of the comparable selected. Thus before considering the comparables the FAR analysis on the basis of the functions performed assets available and risks assumed need to be analyzed in detail if need be to the level of hair splitting which the tax payers attempt for the comparables. Thereafter the selection of comparables is an exercise which would be hugely facilitated and relatively free from the need to address micro variations. Accordingly, the issue is restored to the file of the TPO to carry out this exercise and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion and exclusion of comparable companies for Transfer Pricing analysis. 2. Addition of imputed interest on delayed payments from the Associated Enterprises (AEs). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Inclusion and Exclusion of Comparable Companies: The appeals focus on the correctness of the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee, engaged in IT-enabled back-office support services, selected the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking its international transactions, claiming its transactions were at arm's length. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) objected to the use of multiple-year data and directed a fresh search using data from FY 2009-10. The TPO applied specific filters and selected certain comparables, which the assessee contested. 1.1. Exclusion of Comparables: The assessee sought the exclusion of the following six comparables introduced by the TPO: - Infosys BPO Limited - Accentia Technologies Limited - E4E Healthcare - Igate Global Solutions Limited - TCS E-Serve International Limited - TCS E-Serve Limited The reasons for exclusion included the involvement in high-end services, extraordinary events like amalgamation, lack of segmental information, and ownership of significant IPRs and brands impacting net profitability. 1.2. Inclusion of Comparables: The assessee also sought the inclusion of six comparables excluded by the TPO: - Sparsh BPO Services Ltd. - In House Productions Ltd. (Healthcare Segment) - AOK In-House BPO Services Ltd. - Informed Technologies India Ltd. - Technoprocess Solutions Ltd. (Processing Services Segment) - Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. The TPO excluded these comparables based on not meeting the export sales filter or total sales filter, which the assessee contested. 1.3. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal found that the foundational exercise of proper FAR (Functions, Assets, and Risks) analysis was not adequately conducted. The Tribunal emphasized that minor differences in functionality are tolerated in the TNMM method, and the net profitability should be the focus. The Tribunal restored the issue to the TPO for a detailed FAR analysis and a speaking order. 2. Addition of Imputed Interest: The assessee contested the addition of ?3.30 lakhs as imputed interest for delayed payments from AEs. The TPO had charged a high-interest rate of 14.88% per annum, treating delayed payments as an unsecured loan facility. 2.1. DRP Directions: The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed the TPO to verify the amount of receivables and apply the Prime Lending Rate of SBI plus 150 or 300 basis points based on the aggregate amount of receivables. 2.2. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal restored the issue to the TPO, directing compliance with the DRP's instructions, as no infirmity was pointed out by the parties. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the TPO to re-evaluate the comparables after a detailed FAR analysis and to comply with the DRP's directions regarding the imputed interest on delayed payments.
|
