9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1870 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT - Deselction of companies as functionally not comparable with Low end BPO services as that of assessee. Deselection of company as into high-end KPO services and an assessee rendering low end BPO services cannot be compared with it. BNR Udyog Ltd. (segmental) - Assessee is challenging functional dissimilarity of this company with that of assessee as it is into medical transcription - As medical transcription services is basically back-office services provided by graduates who are trained for short period of 6 months to one year. These are short crash courses undertaken by graduates who are trained to understand and speak English. There is no value addition in the services rendered by people in medical transcription. To our understanding, basically these people who carry out medical transcription services are trained to understand language spoken by doctors, outside India to whom medical reports of patience are sent for expert opinion. Medical transcriptionist simply reproduces opinion expressed by Doctor, which is then communicated to the patients. It is observed from annual report placed that this company has segmental information of medical transcription and revenue earned under this segment is Rs.147.40 Lacs. It is also been observed that various other decisions by co-ordinate Benches of this tribunal has remanded this comparable back to Ld.TPO, for proper analysis and fresh consideration. Thus we set aside this comparable back to Ld.TPO for considering it afresh. Excel Infoways Ltd. (segmental) - As this company for year under consideration made a statement under 133 (6) regarding allocating entire employee cost to IT-BPO segment, with no allocation to other segment, which amounts to almost 49% of its total revenue during the year under consideration. At this stage, we clarify that, we are not inclined to express our opinion regarding functional similarities/dissimilarity of this company with that of present assessee before us and the same is kept open to be considered in an appropriate case. We therefore agree with contention raised by assessee regarding this comparable not satisfying employee cost filter. Informed Technologies India Ltd. - It is observed that this comparable has been not disputed for functional dissimilarity by DRP. However the observation that segmental informations are not available needs to be verified. We are therefore of considered opinion that, this comparable needs to be set-aside to Ld.TPO for verification afresh. Needless to say that assessee shall be granted proper opportunity as per law to represent its case.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 92CA of the Act. 2. Adjustment under Section 92CA of the Act. 3. Rejection of comparables selected by the appellant. 4. Use of multiple year data. 5. Application of turnover filters. 6. Selection of companies with super-profit margins. 7. Functional dissimilarity of certain comparables. 8. Selection of external comparables over internal comparables. 9. Working capital adjustment. 10. Single customer risk. 11. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP). 12. Benefit of the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. 13. Levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 92CA of the Act: The appellant contended that the order of the assessment is bad in law as the mandatory conditions to invoke jurisdiction under Section 92CA of the Act were not met. The assessing officer failed to provide the copy of the approval granted by the Commissioner, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the summary provided. 2. Adjustment under Section 92CA of the Act: The appellant denied the assessment on a total income of Rs. 5,58,10,708/- against the declared income of Rs. 4,92,53,041/-. The Tribunal upheld the adjustment made under Section 92CA of the Act, amounting to Rs. 64,16,427/-, as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). 3. Rejection of comparables selected by the appellant: The appellant argued that the TPO, Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in rejecting the comparables selected by the appellant without cogent reasons. The Tribunal found merit in some of the appellant's contentions and directed the exclusion of certain comparables like Infosys BPO Ltd., TCS e-Serve Ltd., and Excel Infoways Ltd. based on functional dissimilarity and other factors. 4. Use of multiple year data: The appellant contended that the TPO erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data while arriving at appropriate comparables. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the summary provided. 5. Application of turnover filters: The appellant argued that the TPO and AO should have applied the turnover filter of Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 200 crores for the selection of comparables. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the summary provided. 6. Selection of companies with super-profit margins: The appellant contended that the TPO and AO erred in selecting companies with super-profit margins, such as TCS e-Serve Ltd. and Universal Print Systems Ltd. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of these companies based on functional dissimilarity and other factors. 7. Functional dissimilarity of certain comparables: The appellant argued that certain companies like Universal Print Systems Ltd., Infosys BPO Ltd., and TCS e-Serve Ltd. were functionally dissimilar and should not be treated as comparables. The Tribunal upheld this contention and directed the exclusion of these companies from the final list of comparables. 8. Selection of external comparables over internal comparables: The appellant contended that the TPO and AO erred in selecting external comparables over internal comparables. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the summary provided. 9. Working capital adjustment: The appellant argued against the negative working capital adjustment of -0.30% made by the TPO and AO. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the summary provided. 10. Single customer risk: The appellant contended that it runs a 'single customer risk' and suitable risk adjustment should be made. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the summary provided. 11. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP): The appellant argued that the authorities failed to understand the spirit and intent of Rule 10B(1)(e)(ii) regarding the determination of ALP. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the summary provided. 12. Benefit of the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act: The appellant contended that the TPO, DRP, and AO erred in not granting the benefit of the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the summary provided. 13. Levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act: The appellant denied liability for interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act, arguing that the computation of interest was not provided. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the summary provided. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the exclusion of certain comparables like Infosys BPO Ltd., TCS e-Serve Ltd., and Excel Infoways Ltd. based on functional dissimilarity and other factors. The Tribunal remanded some issues back to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration and proper analysis, ensuring that the appellant is granted a proper opportunity to present its case. The appeal was allowed as indicated in the detailed analysis.
|
