2017 (8) TMI 1683 - AT - Income Tax

Computation of deduction u/s 10A - reduce expenditure incurred in foreign currency in the form of insurance freight and telecommunication to be reduced from total turnover as well as export turnover - HELD THAT - The direction of the CIT(A) is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi 2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that if the expenditure is to be excluded from the export turnover then the same has to be excluded from the total turnover as well. This ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed. TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - exclude comparables on the ground that turnover of those companies fall outside the range of Rs. 1 to Rs. 200 crores or they earn abnormal profits or incurred abnormal losses - HELD THAT - As regards turnover filter learned counsel for the assessee not pressed during the course of hearing. As regards filter of abnormal profits or losses as held in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems P. Ltd. 2009 (10) TMI 591 - ITAT CHANDIGARH no comparable can be excluded on the ground that the company is earning abnormal profits or incurring abnormal losses. Accordingly ground are allowed. We uphold the action of the TPO/AO to include in the list of comparables the comparables Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. and Geometric Software Solutions. Exclusion of companies as functionally dissimilar with that of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
2. Exclusion of Expenditure from Export Turnover and Total Turnover for Section 10A Deduction
3. Exclusion of Certain Comparables on the Basis of Turnover and Functional Differences
4. Inclusion of Certain Comparables by the TPO
5. Use of Data at the Time of Assessment Proceedings
6. Application of Multiple Year/Prior Year Data
7. Use of Selective Information by the TPO
8. Functional Dissimilarity of Comparables
9. Risk Adjustment for Limited Risk Entities

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The assessee-company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oracle Netherlands, reported international transactions and submitted a transfer pricing study report using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The TPO accepted TNMM but rejected the assessee's comparables, applying different filters and introducing new comparables, leading to a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 10,02,66,954/-. The CIT(A) directed the exclusion of certain comparables based on turnover and abnormal profits/losses, which was partly upheld and partly dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. Exclusion of Expenditure from Export Turnover and Total Turnover for Section 10A Deduction:
The CIT(A) directed the exclusion of expenditure incurred in foreign currency from both export turnover and total turnover, which was upheld by the Tribunal following the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi (349 ITR 98).

3. Exclusion of Certain Comparables on the Basis of Turnover and Functional Differences:
The CIT(A) excluded certain comparables like Flextronics Software Ltd., iGate Solutions Ltd., L&T Infotech Ltd., Satyam Computers Ltd., and Infosys Technologies Ltd. based on turnover filters and abnormal profits/losses. The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal on this point, stating that turnover and profit filters alone are not sufficient for exclusion.

4. Inclusion of Certain Comparables by the TPO:
The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of comparables like Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. and Geometric Software Solutions by the TPO, rejecting the assessee’s objections regarding functional dissimilarities and fluctuations in margins.

5. Use of Data at the Time of Assessment Proceedings:
The CIT(A) upheld the TPO's approach of using data available at the time of assessment proceedings instead of the data available at the time of preparing the TP documentation, which was contested by the assessee.

6. Application of Multiple Year/Prior Year Data:
The CIT(A) upheld the TPO's approach of not applying multiple year/prior year data for comparables, which was contested by the assessee.

7. Use of Selective Information by the TPO:
The CIT(A) upheld the TPO's approach of collecting selective information under section 133(6) of the Act that was not available in the public domain, which was contested by the assessee.

8. Functional Dissimilarity of Comparables:
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of comparables like Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. and Geometric Software Solutions on functional grounds, while rejecting the inclusion of Spanco Telesystems & Solutions Ltd., Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., Thirdware Solutions Ltd., Flextronics Software Systems Ltd., and Sankhya Infotech based on functional dissimilarities and reliability of financial results.

9. Risk Adjustment for Limited Risk Entities:
The CIT(A) upheld the TPO's approach of not providing an appropriate adjustment towards the risk differential, even when full-fledged entrepreneurial companies were selected as comparables. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee’s cross objections on this point.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal, dismissing the grounds related to the exclusion of expenditure from total turnover and export turnover and upholding the inclusion/exclusion of certain comparables based on functional similarities and turnover filters. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed, maintaining the TPO's approach in several aspects of the transfer pricing analysis.