9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1280 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - comparable selection - application of turnover filter - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. 2018 (7) TMI 1862 - ITAT BANGALORE took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision held as that high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. Thus we hold that companies listed in Sl.No.(a) to (g) of Grd.No.13 raised by the Assessee whose turnover in the current year is more than Rs.200 Crores should be excluded from the list of comparable companies. Exclusion of R.S.Software (India) Ltd. - turnover in the earlier two years being more than Rs.200 crores in the light of Rule 10CA - This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Barracuda Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (5) TMI 322 - ITAT BANGALORE for Assessment Year 2016-17 held that R. S. Software (India) Ltd. is to be regarded as a comparable company but the margins for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 of the company have to be ignored because in those years they are to be regarded as not comparable. We accordingly direct the TPO to take the margins of this company for Financial Year 2015-16 alone. Adjustment towards working capital - The issue with regard to the grant of working capital adjustment should be directed to be examined by the TPO/AO afresh in the light of the decision of the tribunal referred to above after affording opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Choice of comparable companies by the TPO. 2. Non-grant of working capital adjustment. 3. Application of the turnover filter for selecting comparable companies. Detailed Analysis: 1. Choice of Comparable Companies by the TPO: The primary issue in this appeal is the determination of the Arms' Length Price (ALP) for the international transaction of rendering Software Development Services (SWD services) by the Assessee to its Associated Enterprise (AE). The Assessee used the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) with Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). The Assessee's TP study identified 7 comparable companies with an average profit margin comparable to the Assessee's margin of 16%. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) identified additional companies and reworked the PLI at 24.83%, leading to an adjustment of Rs. 2,22,26,782/-. The TPO's selection of comparable companies was challenged by the Assessee before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which upheld the TPO's choice, leading to this appeal. The Tribunal noted that the comparability analysis must consider differences that materially affect the net profit margin. The Tribunal cited the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and prior ITAT decisions to support the need for accurate comparability adjustments. 2. Non-Grant of Working Capital Adjustment: The Assessee argued that the TPO erred in not providing adjustments for differences in working capital between the Assessee and the comparable companies. The DRP had denied this adjustment, citing the Assessee's failure to demonstrate the impact of working capital on costs, prices, or profits. The Tribunal referenced its decision in Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized the necessity of working capital adjustments to account for differences in the time value of money between the tested party and comparables. The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to re-examine the issue of working capital adjustment in light of this precedent, ensuring both parties are on the same footing. 3. Application of the Turnover Filter: The Assessee contended that the TPO failed to apply an upper turnover limit while selecting comparable companies, leading to the inclusion of companies with significantly higher turnovers. The DRP relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. to support the inclusion of high-turnover companies, arguing that high turnover alone does not justify exclusion if the company is otherwise functionally comparable. The Tribunal, however, cited multiple ITAT decisions, including Dell International Services India (P) Ltd. and Autodesk India Pvt. Ltd., which supported the exclusion of companies with turnovers exceeding Rs. 200 crores. The Tribunal concluded that high turnover is a relevant criterion for comparability, favoring the Assessee's position. Consequently, companies listed in the Assessee's grounds of appeal with turnovers above Rs. 200 crores were excluded from the list of comparables. For R.S. Software (India) Ltd., the Tribunal directed that only the margin for the financial year 2015-16 be considered, excluding earlier years where the company's turnover exceeded Rs. 200 crores. Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to: - Recompute the ALP for the international transaction of SWD services, excluding companies with turnovers above Rs. 200 crores from the list of comparables. - Re-examine the issue of working capital adjustment in accordance with the Tribunal's guidelines and precedents. The appeal by the Assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal providing specific directions for recalculating the ALP and considering working capital adjustments.
|
