9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 634 - AT - Income TaxDetermination of ALP - It is claim of the assessee that the assessee has only utilized computer system and software for the purpose of preparing engineering designs drawings calculations and other relevant data-sheet instead of doing them manually - Therefore unless the functional profiles of the assessee company are examined minutely and in detail it is very difficult to say that the assessee is engaged in the business of software development - All these exercises had not been properly done by the TPO or DRP - Therefore restore the matter back to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee s activities or works and then to select the comparables having identical or similar functional profile to that of the assessee and then to determine the ALP in the light of the various guidelines laid down by Tribunal in the case of Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd (2007 -TMI - 65518 - ITAT DELHI-H).- Thus the appeal filed by the assessee is treated to be allowed for a statistical purpose.
Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment to total income based on the arm's length principle for international transactions. 2. Selection and rejection of comparables for determining the arm's length price (ALP). 3. Functional profile and characterization of the assessee's business activities. 4. Consideration of related party transactions in comparables. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Adjustment to Total Income Based on the Arm's Length Principle: The assessee appealed against the AO's assessment order dated 8th April 2010, which included an adjustment of Rs. 5,29,19,406 to the total income. This adjustment was made on the grounds that the international transactions with associate enterprises (AEs) did not satisfy the arm's length principle as per Section 92C(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO's assessment was based on the TPO's order dated 12th October 2009, which suggested the adjustment due to differences in ALP. 2. Selection and Rejection of Comparables for Determining the ALP: The TPO rejected the nine comparables cited by the assessee and instead considered six new comparables, arguing that the assessee was engaged in software development rather than engineering services. The new comparables included Ace Software Exports Ltd., Ontract Systems Ltd., Spanco Ltd., Rolta India Ltd., Tata Technologies Ltd., and WTI Advanced Technologies Ltd., with an average OP/TC margin of 16.14%. The assessee contended that these comparables were engaged in different businesses and thus were not suitable for comparison. 3. Functional Profile and Characterization of the Assessee's Business Activities: The assessee argued that it was an engineering company providing support in engineering designs and drawings, not a software development company. The assessee provided evidence, including designs, drawings, and calculations, to support this claim. The Tribunal referenced its earlier order for the assessment year 2000-01, where it recognized the assessee as engaged in engineering and design, which was transmitted electronically. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed functional analysis to determine the correct comparables. 4. Consideration of Related Party Transactions in Comparables: The assessee raised an alternative contention that even if the TPO's comparables were accepted, three of them (Rolta India Ltd., Tata Technologies Ltd., and WTI Advanced Technology Ltd.) had significant related party transactions, which should disqualify them as comparables. If these three were excluded, the average OP/TC margin would be 10.99%, within the permissible range of +/-5% of the net margin declared by the assessee. Tribunal's Decision and Directions: The Tribunal found that the DRP had not provided adequate reasoning for accepting the TPO's comparables and had not considered the assessee's detailed objections. The Tribunal referenced the principles laid out in the case of Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd., emphasizing the need for a proper functional analysis, risk profile comparison, and consideration of related party transactions in selecting comparables. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, instructing them to: - Conduct a detailed functional analysis of the assessee's activities. - Select comparables with similar functional profiles. - Consider the assessee's objections regarding related party transactions. - Provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Conclusion: The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for the AO/TPO to re-evaluate the ALP determination in light of the Tribunal's guidelines and the assessee's contentions.
|
