9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 712 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - Comparability Analysis and Determination of Arm's Length Price - HELD THAT - M/s. C G VAX Software Exports Limited is not only engaged in the business of computer software development, but also engaged in product manufacturing process, whereas the present assessee is not in product manufacture activity. M/s. C G VAX Software Exports Ltd. owns huge intangible assets and also engaged in outsourced product development. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that the said company cannot be considered for inclusion in the list of comparables. Comparability on the basis of turnover filter - decisions cited by the learned DR before us cannot be the basis to hold that high turnover is not relevant criteria for deciding on comparability of companies in determination of ALP under the Transfer Pricing regulations under the Act. For the reasons given above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on the issue of application of turnover filter and his action in excluding companies by following the ratio laid down in the case of Genisys Integrating 2011 (8) TMI 952 - ITAT BANGALORE . Negative working capital adjustment - Negative working capital adjustment shall not be made in case of a captive service provider as there is no risk and it is compensated on a total cost plus basis. MAT Credit not allowed - At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the MAT credit would be consequential to the decision rendered in AY 2009-10 , 2010-11 2011-12 with regard to exemption u/s. 10A of the Act in those years - HELD THAT - We accept the prayer of the ld. counsel for the assessee and direct the AO to given consequential relief based on the outcome of the earlier assessment years. Ground is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for Software Development Services (SWD). 2. Exclusion of certain companies as comparables. 3. Negative working capital adjustment. 4. MAT credit allowance. Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for Software Development Services (SWD): The assessee, engaged in providing SWD services to its wholly-owned holding company, filed a Transfer Pricing (TP) study using the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) to justify the price as at ALP. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) and selected comparable companies from the database. The TPO's computation resulted in an addition of ?5,03,38,916 to the total income of the assessee due to the adjustment of ALP for SWD services. 2. Exclusion of Certain Companies as Comparables: The assessee sought the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables on various grounds: - CG-VAK Software Exports Ltd.: The assessee argued that this company was functionally different due to its engagement in software product development and lack of segmental data. The Tribunal, following previous decisions, directed the exclusion of CG-VAK Software Exports Ltd. from the list of comparables. - Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Mindtree Ltd., and Persistent Systems Ltd.: The assessee argued for the exclusion of these companies due to their high turnover, which was significantly higher than the assessee's turnover. The Tribunal upheld the view that turnover is a relevant criterion for comparability and directed the exclusion of these companies based on the turnover filter. 3. Negative Working Capital Adjustment: The assessee contested the negative working capital adjustment made by the TPO, arguing that as a risk-insulated captive service provider, it did not bear any working capital risk. The Tribunal, following previous decisions, held that negative working capital adjustment should not be made in the case of a captive service provider and allowed the assessee's ground. 4. MAT Credit Allowance: The assessee claimed that MAT credit of ?3,08,86,381 was not allowed due to pending assessment proceedings for earlier years. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide consequential relief based on the outcome of the earlier assessment years' decisions regarding Section 10A exemption. Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables, disallowed the negative working capital adjustment, and instructed the AO to provide consequential relief for MAT credit based on the outcomes of earlier assessment years. The appeal was partly allowed.
|
