Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1431 - AT - Income TaxTP adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT - Exclude Infosys BPO Company from the list of comparable as company has diversified functions, top global brand and huge turnover of Rs.1831.36 Crores. M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. is not comparable since it is functionally different. Since there are no segmental details, expenditure incurred on outsourcing, we are of the opinion that the CIT (Appeals) is justified in excluding this company as comparable. Admittedly, the functions of the assessee as well as e-Clerx have not change for the last two years i.e., from 2010-11 and 201213. AO in these two years had not considered e-Clerx as a comparable. No reason to grant any relief to the Revenue. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) excluding the e-Clerx from the list of comparable. Remit the issue of comparability in respect of these three companies i.e. M/s. Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Informed Technologies Limited and M/s. Ace BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. to examine and decide as per law. Interest rate charged on the trade receivable - AR had submitted that the Tribunal had allowed the credit period of 120 days as held in OSI Systems Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad 2020 (12) TMI 294 - ITAT HYDERABAD and trade payables are required to be setoff against the trade receivables and the interest should be restricted to LIBOR plus 100 - CIT(A) has restricted the charging of interest at LIBOR 200 basis points allowing the credit period of 60 days - HELD THAT - Though, the ld.AR cited the decision in the case of OSI System Pvt. Ltd. Supra but, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case as the Tribunal in the said case had held applicability of LIBOR 200 basis points to be applied on the trade receivables. Similarly, the Tribunal without assigning any reason has held that 120 days credit period is reasonable period. In our view, no documentary evidence has been brought on record before us so that we can infer that 120 days credit period is a reasonable period. CIT(A) after relying upon the decision of OSI Systems (supra) for the reasons best known to him, had arbitrarily reduced the credit period from 120 days to 60 days. The approach of ld.CIT(A) is without any basis. Hence, we direct the TPO/Assessing Officer to charge interest at LIBOR 200 points. We direct AO / TPO to allow the credit period and charge interest over and above the outstanding period of 120 days.
Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd and M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd as comparables. 2. Inclusion of M/s. Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Informed Technologies Limited, and M/s. Ace BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. as comparables. 3. Rejection of the assessee's Transfer Pricing study. 4. Interest on trade receivables. Detailed Analysis: 1. Exclusion of M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd and M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd as comparables: - Infosys BPO Ltd: The Revenue contended that M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd should be included as a comparable, arguing that its turnover does not affect profitability and that its selling and marketing expenses are related to core activities. The assessee argued that Infosys BPO Ltd is not comparable due to its diversified functions, global brand, and significantly higher turnover. The Tribunal, agreeing with the assessee and relying on previous ITAT decisions, directed the exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd from the list of comparables. - Eclerx Services Ltd: The Revenue argued that M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd should be included as it is a KPO and BPO company employing skilled manpower. The assessee countered that Eclerx is functionally different as it is a KPO. The Tribunal, referencing previous decisions and noting no change in functions over the years, upheld the exclusion of Eclerx Services Ltd from the comparables. 2. Inclusion of M/s. Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Informed Technologies Limited, and M/s. Ace BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. as comparables: - Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd: The Revenue argued that this company is functionally different, citing its annual report indicating a shift towards niche businesses like customer support and software development. The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s reliance on a previous decision and remanded the issue back to the TPO/Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. - Informed Technologies Limited: The Revenue contended that this company was rejected due to insufficient financial information. The Tribunal, referencing the CIT(A)'s reliance on a previous decision, remanded the issue back for fresh consideration. - Ace BPO Services Pvt. Ltd: The Revenue argued that financial information for this company was not publicly available. The Tribunal, noting the CIT(A)'s reliance on a previous decision and the annual report, remanded the issue back for fresh consideration. 3. Rejection of the assessee's Transfer Pricing study: - The assessee raised multiple grounds, including the rejection of their Transfer Pricing study, non-inclusion of certain comparables, and non-exclusion of others. The Tribunal focused on the interest rate charged on trade receivables, directing the TPO/Assessing Officer to charge interest at LIBOR + 200 basis points and allowing a 120-day credit period, aligning with previous decisions. 4. Interest on trade receivables: - The Tribunal addressed the issue of interest on trade receivables, referencing previous decisions and the amendment to section 92B. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to charge interest at LIBOR + 200 basis points but extended the credit period to 120 days, finding the CIT(A)'s reduction to 60 days arbitrary. Conclusion: - The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the comparability issues back for fresh consideration. - The assessee's Cross Objection was partly allowed, directing the TPO/Assessing Officer to charge interest at LIBOR + 200 basis points with a 120-day credit period.
|