9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1314 - AT - Income TaxSelection of comparables Comparable being Vishal Information Technologies Ltd Held that - Annual accounts that Vishal Information Technologies Ltd was outsourcing a considerable portion of its business - Assessee is mainly engaged in rendering services at its own and not outsourced - Accordingly this case was excluded from the list of comparables. Comparable being CMC Limited Held that - CMC s related party transactions (RPTs) are much more than 25% of the total revenue Reliance has been placed upon The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACTIS Advisers (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2012 (10) TMI 779 - ITAT, DELHI , wherein it has been held that a case can be taken as uncontrolled if its related parties transactions do not exceed 25% of the total revenue CMC Ltd., rejected as comparable. Comparable being R Systems International Ltd. Held that - Unless the financial year-end of a comparable case matches with that of the assessee, it cannot be considered as comparable because the figures of different financial year endings are distorted Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Automation India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2009 (2) TMI 736 - ITAT PUNE . IT Appeal No. 4 (PN) of 2008, dated 11-2-2009 , wherein it has been held that it is mandatory for the purposes of comparing the data of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction that the same must relate to the financial year ending similar to that of the assessee Hence, excluded from the list of comparable.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). 2. Inclusion or exclusion of specific comparable cases in the transfer pricing analysis. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Adjustment Made by the TPO: The core issue in this appeal revolves around the deletion of an adjustment amounting to Rs. 2,50,29,070 made by the TPO. The assessee, a subsidiary of CP Ships (UK) Limited, provided IT-enabled back-office services and used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking its international transactions. The TPO, however, rejected some of the comparables selected by the assessee and included new ones, leading to an adjustment. The CIT(A) deleted this adjustment, prompting the Revenue's appeal. 2. Inclusion or Exclusion of Specific Comparable Cases: The dispute centers on the inclusion or exclusion of five comparable cases in the transfer pricing analysis. The analysis of each comparable is as follows: a. Cepha Imaging Private Limited: - TPO's Position: Included this company as it was engaged in ITES. - Assessee's Argument: Contended that Cepha Imaging was functionally incomparable as it was mainly engaged in software and application development. - CIT(A)'s Decision: Excluded this company based on its Annual Report indicating income primarily from software exports. - Tribunal's Analysis: Affirmed CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Tribunal's earlier decision in Maersk Global Service Center (India) (P.) Ltd., which found Cepha Imaging to be engaged in software development services, making it incomparable to an ITES provider. b. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd.: - TPO's Position: Included this company as it was engaged in ITES. - Assessee's Argument: Argued that Vishal Information outsourced its services, unlike the assessee, and had a significantly lower personnel cost ratio. - CIT(A)'s Decision: Excluded this company from the comparables. - Tribunal's Analysis: Supported CIT(A)'s exclusion, noting that Vishal Information outsourced a considerable portion of its business, as evidenced by its financials and consistent with the Tribunal's findings in Maersk Global Service Center (India) (P.) Ltd. c. CMC Limited: - Assessee's Position: Included this company in its comparables. - TPO's Position: Rejected it due to its engagement in trading and system integration services. - CIT(A)'s Decision: Included this company based on its ITES segment. - Tribunal's Analysis: Excluded CMC Limited due to its related party transactions exceeding 25% of total revenue, aligning with the Tribunal's precedents that set a 25% threshold for related party transactions. d. R Systems International Ltd.: - Assessee's Position: Included this company in its transfer pricing study. - TPO's Position: Excluded it due to a different financial year ending. - CIT(A)'s Decision: Included this company, stating that different financial year-end should not be a reason for exclusion. - Tribunal's Analysis: Excluded R Systems International, emphasizing the necessity for matching financial year-ends for comparability, in line with Tribunal precedents. e. Fortune Infotech Limited: - TPO's Position: Rejected this company due to 100% related party transactions. - CIT(A)'s Decision: Included this company in the comparables. - Tribunal's Analysis: Excluded Fortune Infotech, reiterating that 100% related party transactions disqualify a company from being considered comparable. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the AO/TPO to recompute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) afresh, considering the above analysis. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the AO/TPO instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced on 28/02/2013.
|
