Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (6) TMI 56 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:

1. Re-computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act.
2. Transfer Pricing adjustments.

Detailed Analysis:

I. Re-computation of Deduction under Section 10A (Ground Nos. 2 & 3):

The Assessing Officer (AO) had re-computed the deduction under section 10A by reducing foreign exchange expenditure amounting to Rs. 10,18,13,341 from the export turnover without making a corresponding adjustment to the total turnover. The assessee argued that these expenses should not be reduced from the export turnover. Alternatively, if reduced, the same should also be reduced from the total turnover. This alternative submission was supported by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v Tata Elxsi Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Kar.), and in the assessee's own case for AY 2002-03. The Tribunal directed the AO to reduce Rs. 10,18,13,341 from both export turnover and total turnover while computing the deduction under section 10A, allowing ground no.3 and dismissing ground no.2 as unnecessary to adjudicate.

II. Transfer Pricing (Ground Nos. 5 to 16):

A. Methodology for Determining ALP (Ground Nos. 6 & 7):

The assessee used the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) and Cost Plus Method (CPM) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP), comparing man-hour rates charged by major software companies in India. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected this, applying the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) instead. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration, directing them to evaluate whether CPM/CUP is the most appropriate method and whether foreign exchange gain/loss should be considered as part of operating revenue.

B. Exclusion of Certain Comparables Based on Turnover and Functional Dissimilarity (Ground Nos. 10, 11, 12):

The Tribunal excluded eight companies from the TPO's list of comparables due to their high turnover exceeding Rs. 200 crores, following the reasoning in previous Tribunal decisions such as Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. and Telcordia Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Additionally, five companies were excluded due to functional dissimilarity, with detailed reasons provided for each exclusion based on prior Tribunal findings.

C. Specific Adjustments and Re-computation:

1. Foreign Exchange Gains/Losses (Ground No. 12):
The Tribunal directed that foreign exchange gains/losses should be considered as part of the operating revenue or cost for both the assessee and the comparables, following the decision in Trilogy E-Business.

2. Incorrect Margin Computation (Ground No. 13):
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's grievance regarding arithmetical mistakes in the TPO's order and directed the TPO to address the issue expeditiously.

3. Working Capital Adjustment (Ground No. 14):
The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO/TPO to verify and rectify the alleged errors in the working capital adjustment.

4. Risk Adjustment (Ground No. 15):
The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO/TPO to decide afresh, consistent with the findings in the case of M/s. Insilica Semiconductors India Pvt. Ltd v. ITO.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-compute the ALP in accordance with the Tribunal's directions. If the differential in the margin of the assessee and the comparables exceeds the 5% bandwidth, an adjustment is required. The appeal was partly allowed as indicated, and the order was pronounced on February 22, 2013, in Bangalore.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates