2023 (11) TMI 801 - AT - Income Tax

TP adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT - Aptico Limited company is basically involved in project development, sharing of resources and facilities etc. from the nature of revenue earned, it can be seen that, if at all, the revenue earned from research studies and tourism can to some extent be comparable to the assessee, as the assessee is also involved in marketing research activity, though in a different field. However, the TPO has considered the entire revenue earned by this company from all activities for comparability analysis. This, in our view, is unacceptable. Segment-wise breakup of expenses of the company is not available in the financial statement. In fact, no expenses were earmarked to the research studies and tourism. There are no details available regarding nature of research studies and tourism. Thus, in our view, since, the company is engaged in diversified activities and proper segmental details have not been maintained, it cannot be treated as comparable to the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to exclude this company. Indus Technical and Financial Consultants - As per the information available in the website of the company, it is engaged in providing high-end technical services in the areas of environment and pollution control, technology management, financial services, administrative and legal services, project selection and project implementation services, energy and power services etc. Thus, it is evident, though the company is engaged in various activities, however, adequate segmental information is not available in the annual report. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the coordinate Bench in case of Motorola Solution India Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (11) TMI 333 - ITAT DELHI has excluded this company from the list of comparables. Technicom- chemie (India Ltd.) company has shown income from commission, consultancy and services. Whereas, the segmental details relating to the aforesaid segments are not available. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the coordinate Bench in case of Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (11) TMI 333 - ITAT DELHI which is for the very same assessment year, has excluded this company. Due to parity of facts, we follow the decision of coordinate Bench in the case of Motorola Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude this company. WAPCOS Ltd is a techno-commercial organisation under the aegis of Ministry of Water Resources and utilizes the talent and expertise developed in the various organisations of Government of India and State Governments. Under segment reporting, it has reported segment revenue from consultancy and engineering projects and lump sum turnkey projects. Though, the Revenue earned from different segments have been mentioned, however, such details relating to expenses are not there. Therefore, the annual report lacks proper segmental reporting. Thus, as could be seen, the company is functionally different from the assessee in the sense that the assessee has only one segment, whereas it has a number of segments including implementing turnkey projects. Whereas, sufficient segmental details are not available. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude this company from the list of comparables. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. - only reason for which he has rejected the company is, because the revenue earned from service segment is less than 75% of the total revenue. Considering the fact that in assessee s own case 2016 (8) TMI 1470 - DELHI HIGH COURT dated 02.08.2016 has accepted ITDC as a comparable to the assessee, we hold that it is comparable to the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to include this company as a comparable. Idma Laboratories Ltd. though, the company is not involved in any kind of market research, but the testing segment profile can be comparable to the assessee, hence, has directed inclusion of this company as a comparable. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that this company has to be included as a comparable. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. Computational error while computing the working capital adjustment - We restore the issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to compute the working capital adjustment correctly after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Selection/Rejection of Comparables
2. Inclusion of Specific Comparables
3. Computational Error in Working Capital Adjustment

Summary:

1. Selection/Rejection of Comparables:
The assessee, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Honda R & D Company Ltd., Japan, engaged in providing market research and testing services, challenged the selection/rejection of six comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The assessee used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking international transactions, selecting 11 comparables with an average margin of 5.05%. The TPO, however, accepted only four of these and added eight new comparables, resulting in an average margin of 18.18%. This led to an upward adjustment of Rs. 3,11,13,165/- to the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) retained 10 of the TPO's comparables and excluded two.

2. Disputed Comparables:
- Aptico Limited: The assessee argued this company was functionally dissimilar, engaged in high-end technical consultancy across various sectors without relevant segmental data. The Tribunal agreed, directing its exclusion.
- Indus Technical and Financial Consultants: The assessee contended this company provided diverse services without adequate segmental information. The Tribunal, following a precedent, directed its exclusion.
- Technicom-Chemie (India) Ltd.: The assessee claimed this company was a marketing organization for capital goods, lacking segmental details. The Tribunal, citing a similar case, directed its exclusion.
- WAPCOS Ltd.: The assessee argued this company provided engineering consultancy and turnkey projects, making it functionally different. The Tribunal agreed, directing its exclusion.
- India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.: The assessee sought inclusion, noting its functional similarity and previous acceptance in similar cases. The Tribunal directed its inclusion.
- Idma Laboratories Ltd.: The assessee argued for inclusion, citing its quality control testing segment and previous acceptance in similar cases. The Tribunal directed its inclusion.

3. Computational Error in Working Capital Adjustment:
The assessee raised an additional ground regarding a computational error in the working capital adjustment, specifically the incorrect SBI PLR rate. The Tribunal restored this issue to the Assessing Officer for correct computation after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions for the exclusion/inclusion of certain comparables and correction of computational errors. Grounds not specifically argued were deemed dismissed.