9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 1138 - AT - Income TaxTPA - selection of comparable criteria - Held that - The Assessee, is a subsidiary of Cypress Semiconductor Technology Ltd., Cayman Island and is engaged in providing software development and testing services to its associated enterprises (AEs) as a captive service provider in the areas of integrated circuits for memory, interface and data communication applications, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be added to final list of comparability. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.10A of the Act in respect of profits of the Assessee s Bangalore unit - Held that - Bangalore unit was not formed by reconstruction of an existing unit or the business of the new unit had not commenced prior to registration with the STPI and therefore deduction u/s.10A of the Act ought not to have been denied on the profits of the Bangalore unit. The deduction claimed by the Assessee is directed to be allowed. The relevant grounds of appeal of the Assessee are allowed. Computation of 10A claim - Taking into consideration the decision rendered by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd 2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT we are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to exclude telecommunication charges and insurance charges incurred be excluded both from export turnover and total turnover, as has been prayed for by the assessee in the alternative. In view of the acceptance of the alternative prayer, we are of the view that no adjudication is required on the ground whether the aforesaid sums are required to be excluded from the export turnover.
Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions. 2. Exclusion of certain comparable companies. 3. Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Exclusion of certain expenses from export turnover and total turnover. Detailed Analysis: 1. Adjustment of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for International Transactions: The dispute centers around the addition made due to the determination of ALP for software development services provided by the assessee to its associated enterprises (AEs). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) selected 26 comparable companies and calculated an arithmetic mean of 25.14%. After a negative working capital adjustment of 1.32%, the adjusted mean was 23.82%. The TPO computed the ALP based on this adjusted mean, resulting in a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 8,45,74,857. This adjustment was confirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and added to the total income by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee challenged this adjustment before the Tribunal. 2. Exclusion of Certain Comparable Companies: The Tribunal considered the comparability of the 26 companies chosen by the TPO. The assessee argued that 8 of these companies should be excluded based on previous Tribunal decisions, as they were functionally different or had other issues affecting comparability. The Tribunal agreed and excluded the following companies: - Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd.: Functionally different due to revenue from software products. - Celestial Labs Ltd.: Engaged in research and development, not purely software development. - KALS Information Systems Ltd.: Involved in software products and training. - Accel Transmatic Ltd.: Functionally different and had related party transactions. - Lucid Software Ltd.: Involved in software product development. - Infosys Technologies Ltd.: A giant company with significant intangible assets. - Wipro Ltd.: Involved in diverse services and products. - Tata Elxsi Ltd.: Engaged in niche product development services. Additionally, the Tribunal excluded Thirdware Solutions Ltd. and Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd. based on previous decisions, and companies with related party transactions exceeding 15%. Companies with turnovers exceeding Rs. 200 crores were also excluded, following the turnover filter rule. 3. Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act: The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,08,29,786 under Section 10A for its Bangalore unit. The AO disallowed this, citing that the unit was formed by reconstructing an existing unit. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision and the Karnataka High Court's confirmation, which held that the Bangalore unit was not formed by reconstruction and was eligible for the deduction. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction. 4. Exclusion of Certain Expenses from Export Turnover and Total Turnover: The assessee contested the exclusion of data link expenses and foreign travel expenses from the export turnover while computing the deduction under Section 10A. The Tribunal, citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., directed that these expenses should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, directing the exclusion of certain comparable companies, allowing the deduction under Section 10A, and adjusting the computation of export turnover and total turnover. The significant adjustments and exclusions were based on established legal precedents and functional dissimilarities of the comparable companies.
|
