9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 1358 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT - Acropetal Technologies has been held to be into products and that RPT is at 18.66% which is beyond the marginal limit of 15% for year under consideration, by this Tribunal, in case of Electronics for Imaging India Pvt.Ltd for assessment year 2011-12 2017 (7) TMI 1335 - ITAT BANGALORE We therefore do not find any this comparables to be functionally similar with assessee. E- Infochips Ltd. does not satisfy service income filter being 75%. We therefore, do not see any reason to set aside this company to Ld.TPO. Therefore, respectfully following view taken by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in DCIT vs M/s CGI Information Systems and Management Consultations Pvt.Ltd. 2018 (4) TMI 567 - ITAT BANGALORE we direct Ld. TPO to exclude this company. ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd., E-Zhest Solutions Ltd have been consistently excluded by this Tribunal in case of a captive service provider like assessee. CIT.DR could not establish anything contrary to observations of this Tribunal reproduced hereinabove. Respectfully following aforestated view, we do not find any infirmity in exclusion of these comparables by DRP. Addition in respect of advertisement expenses - re-allocation of expenses from the Non-STPI unit to the STPI units - HELD THAT - As Tribunal, in assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 2015 (8) TMI 1447 - ITAT BANGALORE deleted identical addition made on account of re-allocation of expenses from the Non-STPI to the STPI unit as they wew made without any basis. Revenue has not been able to establish any factual difference in the year under consideration with that of AY 2009-10. Respectfully following the same we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Ld.CIT(A). Deduction u/s 10A - reducing the expenditure incurred in travel, telecommunicaiton etc. from export turnover and toatl turnover for compulting deduction - HELD THAT - Admitedly this issue stands settled by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of HCL Technologies Ltd. 2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT Respectfully following the same, we do nto find any infirmtiy in the view taken by Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly this ground raised by revenue stands dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments 2. Software Development Services Transaction 3. Marketing Support Services Transaction 4. Corporate Tax Issues 5. Imposition of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D 6. Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) Detailed Analysis: Transfer Pricing Adjustments: The Tribunal addressed several grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The primary contention was the addition of INR 267,671,356 to the total income due to adjustments in the arm's length price of software development and marketing support services transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) upheld the AO/TPO's use of FY 2010-11 data, which was not available to the assessee at the time of documentation. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of risk profile differences and the rejection of certain comparables by the AO/TPO, which were upheld by the CIT(A). Software Development Services Transaction: The Tribunal examined the rejection of comparables identified by the assessee using various criteria such as export earnings greater than 75% of sales, different accounting years, and employee cost greater than 25% of total revenues. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) upheld the AO/TPO's actions without providing suitable adjustments for differences in risk profiles. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) rejected certain comparables considered by the assessee and accepted others based on unreasonable comparability criteria. Marketing Support Services Transaction: The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not specifically adjudicate the grounds regarding marketing support services transactions. The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the TPO/AO did not provide the search strategy, filters, and basis for selecting comparable companies. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of rejecting companies selected by the assessee based on unreasonable comparability criteria and not providing the margin computation of the final set of comparable companies. Corporate Tax Issues: The Tribunal addressed the issue of reallocating advertisement expenses among all units of the assessee, resulting in an addition of INR 1,22,93,684 to the total income. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) deleted this addition based on the order of the coordinate bench for AY 2009-10. The Tribunal also addressed the reduction of expenditure incurred on travel and communication from export turnover and total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HCL Technologies Ltd. Imposition of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D: The Tribunal addressed the imposition of interest of INR 27,215,433 and INR 1,515,775 under Sections 234B and 234D, respectively. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) upheld the imposition of interest as consequential in nature. Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The Tribunal addressed the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and noted that the CIT(A) held it to be consequential in nature. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables and remanded the issue of marketing support services transactions back to the CIT(A) for detailed adjudication. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to advertisement expenses and reduction of expenditure for Section 10A deduction. The Tribunal also upheld the imposition of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings as consequential in nature.
|
