9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1346 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT - Selection of comparables in a case of assessee rendering SWD services such as the assessee must be functionally similar as that of assessee also if extraordinary events that occurred in the relevant previous year . Thus we direct exclusion of (1) Infosys Ltd. (2) Larsen Toubro Infotech Ltd. (3) Persistent Systems Ltd. (4) Thirdware Solutions Ltd. from the list of comparable companies and restore the question of deciding the comparability of Cigniti Technologies Ltd. to the AO for fresh consideration as directed by the Tribunal in the decision referred to above. Not treating the gain on account of foreign exchange fluctuation as operating income - HELD THAT - This issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by the decision in the case of e4e Business Solutions P. Ltd. 2016 (3) TMI 356 - ITAT BANGALORE held therein that the gains arising from fluctuation of foreign exchange having nexus with international transaction should be treated as operating income and taken into consideration while computing the operating profit of the assessee. Following the aforesaid decision we direct the computation of PLI by treating the gains arising from fluctuation of foreign exchange having nexus with international transaction as part of operating income. TP adjustment in respect of delayed receivables on a notional manner - whether delayed realization of trade receivables from the AE constitutes an international transaction or not? - HELD THAT - Non-charging or undercharging of interest on the excess period of credit allowed to the AE for the realization of invoices amounts to an international transaction and the ALP of such an international transaction is required to be determined. Thus it is held that deferred trade receivable constitutes international transaction. Having concluded that deferred trade receivables constitute international transaction we now proceed to deal with the argument of the Assessee that the credit period allowed to the AE is not unreasonable so as to warrant an inference of any benefit to the AE and consequent determination of ALP of such delayed receivables. From the annual report of the assessee it is clear that the average credit period is about 66 days for realization of trade receivables from the AE. As to whether this period can be construed as reasonable or not has not been examined by the DRP despite submissions by the Assessee in this regard. If there has been no unreasonable delay in realizing the trade receivables from the AE then the addition is not warranted. In our opinion the issue requires to be decided afresh and hence the same is remanded to the AO/TPO to give a factual finding on the aspect what constitutes normal credit period and what is extended credit period that warrants conclusion that there has been a separate international transaction of providing deferred payment facility to the AE. Consequently the issue is remanded to the AO/TPO for consideration afresh in the light of the above discussion after affording opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Disallowance of finance lease purchase - In order to comply with the Accounting Standards AS-19 in its books of accounts the Assessee had capitalised the payments made towards principal component of the rent and claimed depreciation on the same - HELD THAT - It is clear from the facts that the assessee claimed depreciation in the financial statement on the assets taken on lease only because of requirement of AS-19 of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). In the income tax return the assessee has not claimed any depreciation. Since it is a payment of lease rent the claim for deduction has to be allowed. In this regard the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Bharati Hexacom Ltd. 2016 (5) TMI 34 - ITAT DELHI supports the plea of assessee that rental payments have to be allowed as a deduction. We therefore direct that deduction claimed by the assessee should be allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order and directions issued. 2. Comparability analysis for determining the arm's length price (ALP) for software development services. 3. Use of erroneous data by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). 4. Non-allowance of appropriate adjustments to comparable companies. 5. Variation of 3% from the arithmetic mean. 6. Determination of ALP in relation to trade receivables. 7. Disallowance of principal payment towards financial lease. 8. Non-grant of TDS credit. 9. Non-grant of MAT credit entitlement. 10. Excess levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act. 11. Relief sought by the appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order and Directions Issued: The appellant challenged the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1), claiming it was bad in law and violated principles of natural justice. They argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making a reference to the TPO and that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) did not consider their objections regarding transfer pricing matters. The appellant also contended that the AO/TPO did not demonstrate that the appellant's motive was to shift profits outside India by manipulating prices in international transactions. 2. Comparability Analysis for Determining ALP for Software Development Services: The appellant contested the TPO's rejection of the value of international transactions for software development services and the determination of a new ALP. They argued that the TPO arbitrarily rejected comparable companies selected by the appellant and included companies that were functionally dissimilar. The Tribunal admitted additional grounds for appeal, allowing the inclusion of I2T2 India Limited and Evoke Technologies Private Limited as comparables. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Infosys Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Thirdware Solutions Ltd. from the list of comparables and remanded the issue of Cigniti Technologies Ltd. for fresh consideration. 3. Use of Erroneous Data by the TPO: The appellant argued that the TPO used non-contemporaneous data not available in the public domain at the time of the transfer pricing study. The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-examine the comparability of certain companies and consider the data available in the public domain. 4. Non-Allowance of Appropriate Adjustments to Comparable Companies: The appellant claimed that the TPO did not allow appropriate adjustments under Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, to account for differences in accounting practices, depreciation, marketing expenditure, research and development expenditure, and risk profile. The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-determine the ALP in accordance with the directions given, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. Variation of 3% from the Arithmetic Mean: The appellant argued that the AO/TPO erred in not granting the benefits of the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, which allows a variation of 3% from the arithmetic mean. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail but directed the TPO to re-determine the ALP. 6. Determination of ALP in Relation to Trade Receivables: The appellant contested the TPO's determination of a TP adjustment for delayed receivables, arguing that the outstanding receivables were integral to the main transaction of rendering software development services. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration, directing them to determine what constitutes a normal credit period and whether there was an extended credit period warranting a TP adjustment. 7. Disallowance of Principal Payment Towards Financial Lease: The appellant argued that the AO erred in disallowing the principal payment towards a financial lease and capitalizing it as leasehold improvements. The Tribunal directed that the deduction claimed by the appellant should be allowed, as the assets were taken on lease and the appellant did not have any title to them. 8. Non-Grant of TDS Credit: The appellant claimed that the DCIT erred in granting TDS credit of Rs. 2,160,691 instead of Rs. 2,162,489, resulting in a short grant of TDS credit. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claim and give credit in accordance with the law. 9. Non-Grant of MAT Credit Entitlement: The appellant argued that the AO did not consider the carried forward Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit balance. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claim and give credit in accordance with the law. 10. Excess Levy of Interest Under Section 234B of the Act: The appellant contested the levy of interest under Section 234B, amounting to Rs. 201,744,702. The Tribunal directed the AO to give consequential relief. 11. Relief Sought by the Appellant: The appellant prayed for directions to grant all relief arising from the above grounds and all consequential relief. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO/TPO to re-determine the ALP and other issues in accordance with the Tribunal's directions. Conclusion: The Tribunal provided detailed directions on various issues raised by the appellant, including the exclusion and inclusion of comparable companies, the treatment of foreign exchange gains, and the determination of ALP for delayed receivables. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify and grant TDS and MAT credits and provide consequential relief for the excess levy of interest under Section 234B. The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal remanding several issues to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration.
|
