9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1695 - AT - Income TaxTPA - comparable selection criteria - functinal similarity - Held that - The assessee was running an international call centre at Pune and was providing lower-end BPO services to its associated enterprises. This was the first year of operations of assessee thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list. Certain mistakes in computing margins of comparables - Held that - We find merit in the plea of assessee in this regard and delete the findings of CIT(A) vis- -vis Safe Harbour Rules. However in respect of rectification to be carried out in the margins of comparables the Assessing Officer / TPO is directed to carry out the said rectification and give appeal effect to the assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard pointed out that in case the above said concerns are excluded then the margins shown by the assessee would be within /- 5% of mean margins of comparables and no other adjustment on account of comparables is to be made except the economic adjustments asked for. Accordingly we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the margins of comparables and also to exclude the concern which we have so held in the paras hereinabove and compute the TP adjustment if any in the hands of assessee. Adjustment on account of capacity utilization - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case it is evident that the capacity utilization adjustment has to be granted where there has been under utilization or lower utilization of the capacity. In the facts of the present case we deem it appropriate to remit the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide this issue afresh after considering the submissions of the assessee documents on record and decisions of the Tribunal. Accordingly ground no. 2 raised in the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Re-computing PLI of assessee by including expenses recovered as part of operating income and operating expenses; such re-working of PLI was in respect of margins of assessee and no such exercise was carried out in respect of margins of comparables finally selected - Held that - While applying the transfer pricing adjustment the endeavour is to compare like with like and hence the said exercise should be carried out not only in spirit but in actual fact - The assessee is aggrieved by the action of TPO in adopting different methodology for computing its operating margins - certain costs were recovered from other concerns and the same should be excluded from its operating income and operating cost as it does not have bearing on the margins of assessee. We find merit in the plea of assessee in this regard. PLI adopted by the assessee and the TPO is operating income / operating cost and hence only operating income and operating cost of assessee is to be considered for working the margins for the year under consideration. In case certain expenses have been incurred on behalf of related concerns which in turn have been reimbursed then the same are to be excluded from both operating income and operating cost. Accordingly we hold so and direct the Assessing Officer / TPO to re-work the margins of assessee in this regard and also of comparables. Working capital adjustment - Held that - TPO had not taken into consideration the advance from customers while computing net current assets. The plea of assessee is that where the assessee had received advances from its customers which were reflected in the financial statements hence the same needed to be considered while computing net current assets which was not accepted by the TPO. The assessee had raised the contention before the CIT(A) of adopting same methodology for computation of working capital adjustment both for tested party as well as comparable concerns. The CIT(A) has accordingly directed the Assessing Officer / TPO to examine the working and adopt the same methodology as adopted for the comparables. No error in the directions of CIT(A) in this regard where in any case for computing adjustments if any the same treatment to be given to both tested party and comparable concerns. - Appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. Non-Applicability of Transfer Pricing Provisions 3. Non-Consideration of Contemporaneous Data 4. Selection of Inappropriate Qualitative Filters 5. Rejection of Certain Comparables 6. Acceptance of Additional Comparables 7. Acceptance of Companies with Abnormal Profits 8. Computation of Operating Margin Using Safe Harbour Rules 9. Adjustment for Lower Capacity Utilization 10. Non-Consideration of Risk Adjustment 11. Treatment of Recovery of Expenses 12. Levy of Interest under Section 234B 13. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) 14. Inclusion of Certain Comparables Initially Identified as Non-Comparable 15. Inclusion of Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. 16. Exclusion of Cross Domain Solutions Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. 17. Computation of Working Capital Adjustment Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment: The assessee challenged a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9,77,11,928 for its international transactions related to call center services, arguing that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) did not accept the comparability analysis documented in the transfer pricing study report. The TPO's adjustment included expenses recovered by the assessee from associated enterprises as part of operating income and cost, which affected the computation of operating margins. 2. Non-Applicability of Transfer Pricing Provisions: The assessee claimed that transfer pricing provisions should not apply as it enjoyed a tax holiday under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. This ground was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed. 3. Non-Consideration of Contemporaneous Data: The assessee argued that the TPO conducted arm's length analysis based on information available at the time of transfer pricing assessment but not at the time of compliance with transfer pricing regulations. This ground was not pressed and was dismissed. 4. Selection of Inappropriate Qualitative Filters: The assessee contended that the TPO used inappropriate qualitative filters, such as single-year data for comparability analysis, rejection of companies with less than 75% earnings from exports, and rejection of loss-making companies. This ground was not pressed and was dismissed. 5. Rejection of Certain Comparables: The assessee objected to the rejection of CG VAK Software and Exports Limited as a comparable due to its turnover being less than Rs. 1 crore. The Tribunal directed the inclusion of CG VAK Software and Exports Ltd. in the final list of comparables, noting it was not a persistent loss-making concern. 6. Acceptance of Additional Comparables: The TPO included Accentia Technologies Ltd. and E4e Healthcare Solutions Ltd. as comparables. The Tribunal excluded these companies, noting they provided high-end KPO services and were not functionally comparable to the assessee's BPO services. 7. Acceptance of Companies with Abnormal Profits: The assessee argued against the inclusion of companies earning abnormal profits. This ground was not pressed and was dismissed. 8. Computation of Operating Margin Using Safe Harbour Rules: The assessee objected to the TPO's direction to compute operating margins using Safe Harbour Rules. The Tribunal deleted the CIT(A)'s findings on Safe Harbour Rules but directed the TPO to rectify the margins of comparables and give appeal effect to the assessee. 9. Adjustment for Lower Capacity Utilization: The assessee sought an adjustment for lower capacity utilization, arguing it was the first year of operations and full capacity was not utilized. The Tribunal allowed the adjustment, following the ratio laid down in previous cases. 10. Non-Consideration of Risk Adjustment: The assessee argued for a risk adjustment, comparing full-fledged risk-bearing entities with its operations without undertaking any risk adjustment. This ground was not pressed and was dismissed. 11. Treatment of Recovery of Expenses: The assessee contended that recovery of expenses from Club 24 and NEXT Plc should not be treated as part of operating income and operating cost. The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-work the margins of the assessee and comparables, excluding such recoveries. 12. Levy of Interest under Section 234B: The assessee objected to the levy of interest under Section 234B due to the transfer pricing adjustment. This ground was consequential and dismissed. 13. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee argued against the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), considering it premature. This ground was dismissed. 14. Inclusion of Certain Comparables Initially Identified as Non-Comparable: The assessee objected to the inclusion of Cosmic Global Ltd. and Vishal Information Technologies Ltd., initially identified as comparable but later found functionally non-comparable. The Tribunal excluded these companies, noting they were not functionally comparable to the assessee's BPO services. 15. Inclusion of Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd.: The Revenue challenged the inclusion of Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. as a comparable, arguing it was a consistent loss-making concern. The Tribunal directed the TPO to verify if it was a persistent loss-making concern and include or exclude it accordingly. 16. Exclusion of Cross Domain Solutions Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd.: The Revenue challenged the exclusion of Cross Domain Solutions Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. as comparables, arguing higher profits were not a ground for exclusion. The Tribunal upheld the exclusion, noting these companies provided KPO services and were not functionally comparable to the assessee's BPO services. 17. Computation of Working Capital Adjustment: The Revenue objected to the CIT(A)'s direction to consider advances receivable for computing net working capital of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction, emphasizing the same methodology should be applied for both the tested party and comparables. Conclusion: Both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal provided specific directions to the TPO and Assessing Officer to rectify and re-compute the margins and adjustments as per the findings. The order emphasized functional comparability, appropriate adjustments, and consistent methodology in transfer pricing analysis.
|
