9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 558 - HC - Income TaxTP Adjustment - comparable selection - Tribunal excluded M/s Accentia Technologies Limited, M/s TCS E-Serve Ltd. and M/s TCS E-Serve International Ltd. from comparables for determining the ALP - HELD THAT - Revenue was unable to demonstrate that the order of the Tribunal suffers from any illegality or perversity as it had failed to consider or appreciate any relevant circumstances for excluding these three comparables, namely, M/s. Accentia Technologies Ltd., M/s. TCS E-Serve Ltd. and Ms. TCS E-Serve International Ltd. for determining the ALP as functionally dissimilar with that of assessee. It cannot be held that the aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal in the appeal warrant any interference by this Court.
Issues:
1. Exclusion of comparables for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in transfer pricing assessment. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the exclusion of certain comparables for determining the ALP in the case of the assessee company for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue. The assessee was engaged in providing data collection, web services, and related support services to its associated enterprises, prompting a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the ALP due to international transactions. The TPO made transfer pricing adjustments, which were revised by the Dispute Resolution Panel before the final assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, in its order, excluded certain comparables like M/s Accentia Technologies Limited, M/s TCS E-Serve Ltd., and M/s TCS E-Serve International Ltd. for determining the ALP, leading to the current appeal. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in excluding the comparables as they were providing similar services to the assessee company. However, the appellant's counsel supported the Tribunal's decision, citing previous judgments that upheld the exclusion of these comparables based on functional dissimilarities and lack of segmental information to differentiate income and expenses between services provided. The Tribunal's decision to exclude the comparables was based on their functional dissimilarity to the assessee company, as they were engaged in different types of services without clear segmental information available. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and High Court judgments that supported the exclusion of these comparables in similar cases within the industry. The Delhi High Court's ruling in a related case further supported the exclusion of certain comparables due to functional dissimilarities and brand value considerations. Ultimately, the Court found no substantial question of law that warranted interference with the Tribunal's decision to exclude the comparables. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, concluding that there was no basis for interference in the matter. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issue of excluding comparables for determining the ALP in transfer pricing assessment, emphasizing functional dissimilarities and lack of segmental information as key factors in the decision-making process. The Court's analysis highlights the importance of industry-specific considerations and previous legal precedents in determining the validity of comparables in transfer pricing assessments.
|
