2025 (3) TMI 23 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - comparable selection - inclusion of the four entities herein i.e. Eclerx Services Ltd.; TCS E-serve Ltd.; Infosys BPO Ltd.; and Tech. Mahindra Ltd. - HELD THAT - We see no reason to sustain the learned lower authorities action to this effect. We wish to make it clear that although the Revenue s foregoing vehement contention that each and every assessment year involves its own set of facts could not be simply brushed aside the fact however remains that it is incumbent for the department only to pin point specific distinction in light of the corresponding change in the specified segment involved in such an instance. We further deem it appropriate to emphasize here that right from A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2013-14 before us the assessee s corresponding segment of IT-enabled services has not witnessed any change at all which could take us to a different conclusion as it is projected at the Revenue s behest. Two of the four entities in question herein i.e. Infosys BPO Ltd.; and M/s Tech. Mahindra Ltd. had witnessed extraordinary event of acquisition in the relevant prescribed time period of two years prior to the relevant financial year as per Rule 10B(4) 1st proviso as well and therefore these two entities do not deserve to be included in the array of comparables. The Revenue could further not dispute that these latter two entities i.e. Infosys BPO Ltd.; and Tech. Mahindra Ltd. do not satisfy the corresponding relevant related party transaction filter of less than 25% adopted by the TPO himself as well. CIT(DR) at this stage sought to buttress the point that the assessee s vehement contentions seeking to exclude the foregoing comparable entity by applying turnover filter do not deserve to be accepted. We find in this factual backdrop that in case of M/s Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (5) TMI 137 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has already rejected the Revenue s very argument involving M/s Infosys BPO Ltd. thereby upholding the tribunal s order directing exclusion thereof on turnover filter. The Revenue s instant last argument fails in very terms therefore. We accordingly accept the assessee s instant third substantive ground to the limited extent seeking exclusion of these four entities namely Eclerx Services Ltd.; TCS E-serve Ltd.; Infosys BPO Ltd.; and Tech. Mahindra Ltd. and direct the learned TPO to finalize his afresh computation as per law in very terms.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is valid.2. Whether the determination of arm's length adjustment to the appellant's alleged international transaction with Associated Enterprises was correct.3. Whether the assessment of the arm's length price of the appellant's international transactions was done in accordance with the law.4. Whether the risk adjustment contended by the appellant in its transfer pricing submissions was arbitrarily rejected.5. Whether the selection of current year data for comparability was appropriate.6. Whether charging interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act was justified.7. Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was valid.Detailed analysis of the issues presented in the judgment:The appellant raised various substantive grounds challenging the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal heard both parties and examined the case file. The appellant's representative submitted that certain grounds were general, not pressed, or consequential and were rejected accordingly.The Tribunal focused on the issue of inclusion and exclusion of comparable entities in determining the arm's length price of the appellant's international transactions. The appellant, M/s BT E Serv India Pvt. Ltd., provided IT-enabled services and back office support services to its group entities. The Assessing Officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm's length price of the international transactions.The TPO's inclusion of certain entities as comparables was challenged by the appellant. The Tribunal analyzed each of the entities, including Eclerx Services Ltd., TCS E-serve Ltd., Infosys BPO Ltd., Tech. Mahindra Ltd., and ACE BPO Services Pvt. Ltd., in detail. The appellant's representative argued that these entities did not meet the functional asset and risk test and should be excluded from the comparables.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the inclusion and exclusion of the comparable entities. It referred to previous decisions and case law to support its reasoning. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the inclusion of certain entities as comparables was not justified and directed the TPO to finalize the computation afresh in accordance with the law.Significant holdings from the judgment:The Tribunal accepted the appellant's challenge regarding the inclusion of certain entities as comparables and directed the TPO to exclude Eclerx Services Ltd., TCS E-serve Ltd., Infosys BPO Ltd., and Tech. Mahindra Ltd. from the array of comparables. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of conducting a thorough analysis of comparables in transfer pricing assessments and upheld the appellant's arguments in this regard.The judgment highlights the need for a detailed examination of comparable entities in transfer pricing assessments to ensure a fair and accurate determination of arm's length prices. The Tribunal's decision provides clarity on the application of transfer pricing rules and the importance of considering specific facts and circumstances in each assessment year.Overall, the judgment addresses key issues related to transfer pricing and provides important guidance on the proper evaluation of comparables in determining arm's length prices for international transactions.