9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2653 - AT - Income TaxTPA - selection of comparable - Held that - The assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of Printed Circuit Board Assembly which has application in the telecom, industrial electronics and consumer products segment. It also operated a shared services division for providing back office services relating to accounts payable processing and human resources record maintenance, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list of comoarable. Deduction under section 10A computation - setting off losses - Held that - Since the issue is covered in the case of ACIT, 12(3) v. Yokogawa India Ltd., (2011 (8) TMI 845 - Karnataka High Court ), we are of the view that the DRP has erred in upholding the AO s reasoning in recomputing the relief u/s 10A and thereby computed the relief u/s. 10A at Nil as against the amount of ₹ 60,892,020 claimed by the assessee in its return of income. This ground of appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Selection of comparables for Transfer Pricing. 2. Setting off losses incurred by the domestic unit against the income earned by the unit eligible for relief under section 10A of the Income-tax Act. 3. Re-computation of relief under section 10A of the Income-tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Selection of Comparables for Transfer Pricing: The primary issue revolved around the selection of comparable companies by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the appropriateness of these comparables in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The TPO selected a set of 20 comparables, with an average profit margin of 24.75%. The assessee challenged the inclusion of several companies on the grounds of functional dissimilarity and extraordinary events affecting financials. - Accentia Technologies Ltd.: The assessee argued that this company was not comparable due to extraordinary events like amalgamations. The Tribunal agreed, citing a precedent where similar circumstances led to exclusion due to the impact on financial results. - Acropetal Technologies Ltd.: The Tribunal held that this company was not functionally comparable as it was engaged in software development and engineering design services, unlike the assessee's low-end ITES functions. - Coral Hubs Ltd.: This company was excluded because it outsourced most of its work, failing the employee cost filter, and was involved in new verticals like Digital Library and Print on Demand, making it functionally different. - Cross Domain Solutions Ltd.: The Tribunal found this company functionally incomparable due to its engagement in high-end KPO services and development of information systems, unlike the assessee's routine ITES services. - Eclerx Services Ltd.: Excluded for having supernormal profits and being a high-end KPO, which is distinct from the assessee's services. - Genesys International Corporation Ltd.: Excluded due to its specialized services in geospatial content and R&D activities, requiring a different skill set and owning intangibles. - Infosys BPO Ltd.: Excluded because of its brand value, substantial intellectual property, and different scale of operations, which significantly influenced its pricing policy and margins. - Mold-tek Technologies Ltd.: Excluded as it was engaged in structural engineering services, categorized as KPO, and had undergone business restructuring. - Wipro Ltd. (Seg): Excluded for reasons similar to Infosys BPO Ltd., including substantial intellectual property and brand value influencing its operations. The Tribunal concluded that excluding the above comparables would result in the assessee's profit margin being within the acceptable range of +/- 5%, thereby nullifying the need for the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 83,877,257. 2. Setting off Losses Incurred by the Domestic Unit Against the Income Earned by the Unit Eligible for Relief Under Section 10A: The assessee contested the Assessing Officer's (AO) action of setting off losses from the domestic unit against the income from the SEZ unit eligible for relief under section 10A. The Tribunal referred to the jurisdictional High Court's decision in ACIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd., which held that such set-offs were not permissible. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the relief under section 10A as claimed. 3. Re-computation of Relief Under Section 10A: The Tribunal addressed the AO's re-computation of relief under section 10A, which resulted in the relief being computed at NIL. Given the High Court's ruling in Yokogawa India Ltd., the Tribunal found the AO's re-computation incorrect and allowed the relief of Rs. 60,892,020 as claimed by the assessee. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, with the Tribunal directing the exclusion of certain comparables and allowing the relief under section 10A as originally claimed. The decision emphasized the importance of functional comparability and adherence to judicial precedents in transfer pricing and tax computations.
|
