9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 1381 - HC - Income TaxTP Adjustment - inclusion of E4e Healthcare as a comparable - Assessee had objected to the use of the said entity as a comparable on the ground that its annual report was not available in the public domain - HELD THAT - None of the objections of the Assessee with regard to the inclusion of E4e Healthcare were adjudicated. However, the assessee did not agitate the matter further, because the learned TPO had determined the ALP adjustment for the AY 2012-13 as NIL. It is thus, clear that the Assessee s contention that E4e Healthcare is functionally dissimilar to the assessee and therefore, could not be included as a comparable, has not been considered by any authority. As noted above, the orders passed by the learned DRP, the learned TPO and the learned ITAT proceeded on an assumption which are ex-facie incorrect.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant seeking exclusion of E4e Healthcare as a comparable for benchmarking the international transaction of provision of IT-enabled services. 2. Whether the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse and unsustainable in law. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exclusion of E4e Healthcare as a Comparable: The primary issue in this case revolves around the inclusion of E4e Healthcare as a comparable entity for benchmarking international transactions related to IT-enabled services. The Assessee objected to this inclusion on the grounds that the annual report of E4e Healthcare was not available in the public domain, making it impossible to ascertain its functional comparability. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) rejected this objection, assuming that the Assessee's concerns were related to the employee cost filter, which was not the case. The Tribunal also dismissed the Assessee's objections, incorrectly concluding that the Assessee had not raised any issues regarding functional dissimilarity before the lower authorities. The Tribunal relied on the fact that E4e Healthcare was used as a comparable in the previous assessment year without objection, which was not entirely accurate as the matter was remanded for further consideration. 2. Perverse and Unsustainable Findings: The Assessee argued that the Tribunal's findings were perverse and unsustainable in law due to the fundamental flaw in the assumption that the objection was based on the employee cost filter. The DRP and the Tribunal both inferred incorrectly that the Assessee had access to the annual accounts of E4e Healthcare, leading to flawed conclusions. The Tribunal did not examine the Assessee's contention that E4e Healthcare was functionally different, focusing instead on the erroneous premise that the Assessee's objections were limited to the employee cost filter. This misinterpretation resulted in a decision that failed to address the core issue of functional comparability. Conclusion: The judgment highlights a significant oversight in the handling of the Assessee's objections concerning the inclusion of E4e Healthcare as a comparable entity. The court found that the decisions of the TPO, DRP, and Tribunal were based on an incorrect assumption about the nature of the Assessee's objections. Consequently, the court restored the matter to the TPO to re-examine the inclusion of E4e Healthcare as a comparable entity, reserving all rights and contentions of the parties. The questions of law were answered in favor of the Assessee, emphasizing the need for a thorough evaluation of functional comparability in transfer pricing cases.
|
