9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1534 - AT - Income TaxTPA - comparable selection criteria - Held that - Assessee is into software development services thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list. Suitable adjustments on account of differences in the risk profile of the appellant vis- -vis the comparables, while conducting comparability analysis - Held that - Controlled and uncontrolled transactions are comparable only when adjustments with respect to significant differences between them in terms of risks assumed is made. The risk attributed to the assessee by the TPO is an anticipated risk whereas the risk attributed by the assessee to the comparables is an existing risk. In such situation, the TPO ought to have given the risk adjustment to the net margin of the corn parables for bringing them on par with the assessee company. Therefore, we direct the TPO to consider all the contentions of the assessee and after taking into account all the relevant material decide the percentage of risk adjustment to be made in accordance with law. This ground is accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes Computation of deduction u/s 10A - leased line charges, IPLC service charges (Leased Circuit) & foreign travel expenses exclusions - Held that - The leased line charges, IPLC service charges (Leased Circuit) & foreign travel expenses ought not to have been excluded or Alternatively, if they are excluded from the export turnover similar exclusion be made in the Total turnover for arriving the deduction u/s 10A, which are in accordance with the decision in CIT v Tata Elxsi and accordingly we direct the AO to exclude them from the export turnover and also from the Total turnover, while computing the deduction u/s 10A.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. Exclusion of Certain Comparables 3. Risk Adjustment 4. Corporate Tax Matters Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment: The assessee, a subsidiary of Sharp Laboratories of America Inc., engaged in software development services, entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) amounting to ?19,35,17,429/-. The assessee used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and selected 28 comparables, arriving at an arithmetic mean of 14.53%. As its net margin of 9.5% was within the arm's length range, the assessee considered the transactions at arm's length. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected this study, selected 26 comparables, and arrived at an adjusted mean margin of 23.03%, resulting in a shortfall of ?2,30,62,126/- treated as a transfer pricing adjustment under Section 92CA. 2. Exclusion of Certain Comparables: The assessee sought the exclusion of 18 out of 26 comparables selected by the TPO, including five comparables initially selected by the assessee. The Tribunal accepted the additional ground for exclusion of certain comparables based on functional differences and turnover filters, referencing several Tribunal decisions: - Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd: Excluded due to super-normal profits and functional differences. - Celestial Labs Ltd: Excluded as it is primarily an R&D company. - KALS Information Systems Ltd: Excluded due to functional differences and lack of segmental information. - Megasoft Ltd: Segmental results to be reworked, only software development services segment considered. - E-Zest Solutions Ltd: Excluded as it provides high-end KPO services, not comparable to software development services. - Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd: Excluded due to functional differences. - Quintegra Solutions Ltd: Excluded due to engagement in product engineering services and owning intangibles. - Thirdware Solutions Ltd: Excluded due to lack of segmental information and involvement in product development. - Ishir Infotech Ltd and Lucid Software Ltd: Excluded based on previous Tribunal decisions. - Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg): Excluded due to lack of reconciliation between annual report and information obtained under Section 133(6). - Infosys Technologies Ltd: Excluded due to significant intangibles and revenue from software products. - Persistent Systems Ltd: Excluded due to engagement in product design services and lack of segmental information. - Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd: Excluded due to significant R&D expenses and owning IPRs. - Tata Elxsi Ltd: Excluded due to engagement in product design services, not purely software development services. - Wipro Ltd: Excluded due to engagement in both software and product development services and owning intangibles. 3. Risk Adjustment: The assessee argued for a risk adjustment due to its limited risk environment compared to independent comparables. The Tribunal directed the TPO to consider all contentions and decide the percentage of risk adjustment in accordance with law, referencing the decision in M/s Intellinet Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO. 4. Corporate Tax Matters: The assessee contended that leased line charges, IPLC service charges, and foreign travel expenses should not be excluded from export turnover or alternatively, if excluded, should also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deduction. The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude these expenses from both export and total turnover, following the decision in CIT v Tata Elxsi. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the exclusion of certain comparables, reconsideration of risk adjustment, and appropriate computation of Section 10A deduction.
|
