2016 (7) TMI 238 - AT - Income Tax

Computation of adjustment in respect of provision of services to AEs at entity level - Held that - Addition is to be confined to the component of international transactions with the AEs alone and not to the entire segmental results. The adjustment arising as a result of TP analysis is to be confined to the international transactions undertaken with the AEs alone and not in relation to non AE transactions. Sundry credit balances written back - Held that - It is not in dispute that no details were filed either before the AO or before the DRP. However, since it involves computation of operating profit of the assessee and since the assessee has filed certain details which were not before the TPO or the DRP, therefore, we, in the interest of justice, restore this issue to the file of the AO/TPO with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to justify and explain to the satisfaction of the AO/TPO that the sundry credit balances written back amounting to ₹ 29,33,688/- is part of the operating income of the assessee. The AO shall decide the issue in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. This ground by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Computing the deduction u/s.10A - Held that - We restore this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to compute the deduction u/s.10A as per law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
2. Erroneous rejection of segmental profitability of the Appellant
3. Erroneous computation of adjustment in respect of provision of Engineering Design Services to Associated Enterprises at the entity level
4. Erroneous computation of operating profit of the Appellant
5. Erroneous selection of comparable companies
6. Erroneous rejection of comparable companies
7. Erroneous computation of operating margin of comparable company
8. Erroneous computation of working capital adjusted margins of certain comparable companies
9. Risk adjustment denied
10. Variation/reduction of 5 percent from the arithmetic mean denied
11. Erroneous computation of deduction u/s.10A
12. Initiation of penalty proceedings
13. Levy of interest on account of unanticipated transfer pricing adjustment

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The assessee contested the adjustment amounting to Rs. 6,04,43,374 made by the ACIT to the value of international transactions with its Associated Enterprise in respect of provision of Engineering Design Services. The adjustment was based on the operating margin of the entire entity rather than the segmental profitability of the international transactions. The Tribunal directed the AO to work out the PLI of the segment consisting of the international transactions only, aligning with the principle that PLI should be computed only for the segment pertaining to international transactions with AEs.

2. Erroneous rejection of segmental profitability of the Appellant:
The TPO made an adjustment based on the whole entity's operating margin of 11.67%. The assessee argued that the adjustment should be based on segmental profitability of "Exports to AE" as domestic sales profitability does not reflect profits earned from international transactions. The Tribunal agreed and directed the AO to consider the segmental profitability data provided by the assessee.

3. Erroneous computation of adjustment in respect of provision of Engineering Design Services to Associated Enterprises at the entity level:
The Tribunal held that the adjustment should be confined to international transactions with AEs alone, following precedents set by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in similar cases. This aligns with the principle that TP adjustments are to be computed based on international transactions and not on the entire entity level.

4. Erroneous computation of operating profit of the Appellant:
The assessee claimed that sundry credit balances written back amounting to Rs. 29,33,688 should be considered as part of the operating income. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to verify the details and decide accordingly, ensuring the operating profit computation includes this amount if justified.

5. Erroneous selection of comparable companies:
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Genesys International Corporation Ltd. from the list of comparables, as it was not considered comparable by the TPO in subsequent assessment years and was functionally different. However, Acropetal Technologies Ltd. was held to be functionally comparable, but only the profit margin of the Engineering Design Services segment should be considered.

6. Erroneous rejection of comparable companies:
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of Ace Software Exports Ltd. due to various reasons including its business nature and lack of segment-wise performance data. Geometric Software Solutions Co. Ltd. was also rightly rejected due to substantial related party transactions exceeding 25%.

7. Erroneous computation of operating margin of comparable company:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to adopt the correct margin for C.S. Software Ltd., after verification of records.

8. Erroneous computation of working capital adjusted margins of certain comparable companies:
This ground was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed as 'not pressed'.

9. Risk adjustment denied:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to consider the allowability of risk adjustment, following the principle that risk adjustments should be made to bring comparables on par with the assessee.

10. Variation/reduction of 5 percent from the arithmetic mean denied:
The assessee acknowledged that this ground is against it due to amendments, and it was dismissed.

11. Erroneous computation of deduction u/s.10A:
The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the deduction u/s.10A correctly as per law, allowing the assessee to raise additional claims before the appellate authorities.

12. Initiation of penalty proceedings:
This issue was not specifically addressed in the detailed analysis provided.

13. Levy of interest on account of unanticipated transfer pricing adjustment:
This issue was not specifically addressed in the detailed analysis provided.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remitted back to the AO/TPO for reconsideration and proper verification.

← Previous Next →