9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 303 - AT - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustments Selection of comparables Related party transactions filter - Functionally different filter - Exceptional year of Operations - Error in margin computation - Held that - There is a merit in assessee s contentions about non-comparability of various comparable companies selected by the TPO - as regards the Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., there is an extra-ordinary event which resulted in high operating margin of that company - Bodhtree consulting Ltd, Four Soft Ltd, Infosys,., Sankhya Infotech Ltd., Thirdware Solutions Ltd, Tata Elexi (seg) etc, are also to be excluded - the AO is directed to exclude the above comparables and re-work out the arm s length margin - inclusion or exclusion of these companies would only be academic in nature as exclusion of 7 comparables out of the 16 selected by the TPO would result in OP/TC at 14.25% against assessee s margin of 13.89% - The above two companies average PLI is at 4.36% - inclusion of the above two would further reduce the PLI thus, exclusion of 7 companies itself would make the assessee s PLI at arm s length when compared to the average mean of the balance 9 comparables Decided in favour of Assessee. Expenses on communication and freight and expenses Expenses incurred in foreign currency Deduction u/s 10A of the Act Held that - Following Patni Telecom P. Ltd. vs. ITO 2008 (1) TMI 452 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A - the expenditure incurred in foreign exchange and communication / internet charges should be excluded from the export turnover as well as from total turnover for the purpose of deduction u/s 10A of the Act thus, the order of the FAA is upheld Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments 2. Deduction under Section 10A 3. Inclusion of Interest Income, Gain on Sale of Fixed Assets, and Miscellaneous Receipts 4. Levy of Interest under Section 234B Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments: The assessee raised several grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, challenging the selection of comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO had identified 17 comparables and calculated an arithmetic mean of operating profits to total cost at 26.59%, which was adjusted to 24.65% after allowing a working capital adjustment. The TPO's final adjustment to the arm's length price (ALP) was Rs. 4.27 crores. The assessee objected to the inclusion of seven specific comparables, namely Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., Sankhya Infotech Ltd., Foursoft Ltd., Thirdware Solutions Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., and Infosys Technologies Ltd., on various grounds such as functional differences, exceptional year of operations, and related party transactions. Upon review, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions. For instance, Exensys Software Solutions Ltd. was excluded due to an extraordinary event of amalgamation, which resulted in high operating margins. Similarly, other companies were excluded based on functional differences and other specific reasons. The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude these comparables and re-compute the ALP. 2. Deduction under Section 10A: The assessee contested the exclusion of communication charges, freight charges, and expenses incurred in foreign currency from the export turnover for the purpose of computing the deduction under Section 10A. The CIT(A) had partially allowed the assessee's claims but rejected most grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude these expenses from both the export turnover and total turnover, following the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Patni Telecom P. Ltd. vs. ITO and other relevant case law. This approach ensures that the deduction under Section 10A is computed correctly. 3. Inclusion of Interest Income, Gain on Sale of Fixed Assets, and Miscellaneous Receipts: The assessee argued that interest income, gain on sale of fixed assets, and miscellaneous receipts should not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computing the deduction under Section 10A. The Tribunal noted that the turnover adopted by the AO matched the amount in the assessee's audit report, and no modifications were made by the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected this ground, stating that any mistake in the audit report could not be attributed to the AO's order. 4. Levy of Interest under Section 234B: The assessee challenged the levy of interest under Section 234B on the additional income arising from the transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present objections and to consider the issue both factually and legally before deciding on the levy of interest. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Conclusion: The Tribunal's consolidated order partially allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to rework the ALP by excluding certain comparables and to reconsider the levy of interest under Section 234B. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s directions to exclude specific expenses from both export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of Section 10A deduction. The Tribunal's decision ensures that the transfer pricing adjustments and deductions under Section 10A are computed accurately and fairly.
|
