9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1710 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT - The assessee-company engaged in the business of providing software development and consulting services to its AE and also in rendering application development maintenance quality assurance and strategic guidance to its customers the assessee entered into an international transaction with its AE (during the relevant financial year) for providing software development and consulting services thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list. Working capital adjustment - HELD THAT - No separate adjustment of the interest on receivables is required as already it has been considered while computing the working capital adjustment. See KUSUM HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. 2017 (4) TMI 1254 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for software development and consultancy services. 2. Rejection of the transfer pricing study and comparability analysis. 3. Adjustment of notional interest on delay in collection of dues from the Associated Enterprise (AE). 4. Application of Related Party Transaction (RTP) filter. 5. Levying of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for Software Development and Consultancy Services: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the determination of a mark-up of 24.73% for the provision of software development and consultancy services to its AE, resulting in an adjustment of ?7,51,51,293 to the total income under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in upholding this adjustment. The Tribunal found that the assessee had initially adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with a margin of 13.93%, but the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) conducted an independent analysis, arriving at a final list of comparables with an average margin of 19.96%, which after working capital adjustment, was determined at 19.68%. 2. Rejection of the Transfer Pricing Study and Comparability Analysis: The assessee challenged the rejection of its transfer pricing study and the comparability analysis conducted by the TPO. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not press certain grounds related to the rejection of the transfer pricing study and comparability analysis. However, the Tribunal adjudicated on the comparability of specific companies. Persistent Systems Ltd was excluded from the final list of comparables due to its engagement in software products and services without segmental data. Similarly, CG-Vak Software & Exports Ltd and L&T Infotech Ltd were excluded due to the absence of segmental data and differences in functional profiles. Infobeans Technologies Ltd was remanded to the TPO for reconsideration. 3. Adjustment of Notional Interest on Delay in Collection of Dues from the AE: The assessee objected to the adjustment of ?16,01,847 for notional interest on overdue receivables from the AE. The Tribunal referred to its decision in the assessee's own case for the previous assessment year, where it held that no adjustment for interest on receivables is required if working capital adjustment has already been considered. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify if the final margins were arrived at after working capital adjustment, and if so, no further addition should be made. If not, interest at LIBOR rate may be applied. 4. Application of Related Party Transaction (RTP) Filter: The assessee sought the application of an RTP filter at 15% instead of 25%. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground and directed the TPO to consider the RTP filter while examining the comparability of the challenged companies. 5. Levying of Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act: The assessee contested the levying of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D. The Tribunal noted that this ground was consequential in nature and directed the AO to provide consequential relief if applicable. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the exclusion of certain companies from the comparability analysis, remanding the consideration of Infobeans Technologies Ltd, and holding that no separate adjustment for interest on receivables is required if working capital adjustment is already considered. The Tribunal also directed the application of the RTP filter at 15% and provided for consequential relief regarding the levying of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D.
|
