9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 184 - HC - Income TaxTPA - selection of comparable - Held that - As finances of the company that outsources a major part of its business cannot be compared to one that does not.
Issues:
Appeal against Tribunal's order excluding two comparables for determining arm's length price of international transaction. 1. Exclusion of Nucleus Netsoft and GIS (India) Limited as comparables. 2. Exclusion of Vishal Information Technologies Limited as a comparable. Analysis: Issue 1: Exclusion of Nucleus Netsoft and GIS (India) Limited as comparables The Tribunal excluded these comparables due to a significant portion of their business being outsourced, exceeding 40%. The merger of Nucleus Netsoft and GIS (India) Limited was also a factor considered. The High Court upheld the exclusion based on the substantial outsourcing in these companies, which differed from the appellant's business model. The absence of detailed reasoning for exclusion was raised, but the Court found the Tribunal's decision supported by financial data showing over 40% outsourcing in these companies. Issue 2: Exclusion of Vishal Information Technologies Limited as a comparable Vishal Information Technologies Limited was excluded by the Tribunal as it outsourced about 44.81% of its business, significantly impacting its financial structure. The Tribunal's findings highlighted the low employee cost ratio of Vishal Information Technologies Limited compared to industry standards, justifying its exclusion as a comparable. The Court deemed this exclusion justified based on factual evidence and industry benchmarks provided by the Transfer Pricing Officer. Additional Judgment Reference: In a previous judgment, the Court established that companies outsourcing a major part of their business cannot be equated with those that do not outsource significantly. This precedent was cited to support the decision regarding the comparables' exclusion. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose in the case due to the clear justifications for excluding the comparables based on outsourcing and financial differences.
|
