2017 (10) TMI 687 - AT - Income Tax

TPA - ALP determination - Comparable selection procedure - Held that - Stryker Technology started its business from October 1, 2006 as a global technology centre for the Stryker Group in India. The taxpayer operates as a technology support centre for the group and provides Computer Aided Designing (CAD) / engineering, contract software development, and IT Enabled back office support services to the Stryker Group. According to TP report, Stryker Technology has been characterized as a routine CAD / engineering contract software development and IT enabled back office support services provider and stated to use all the valuable intellectual property rights (know-how, copyrights etc.) and other commercial or marketing intangibles (brand names, trademarks etc.) owned by the Group. Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) used by the assessee for benchmarking its international transaction as most appropriate method has been accepted by the TPO/DRP. Thus Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list of comparable. Adding back the amount of Rent equalization reserve to the book profits of the Appellant, declared under section 115JB - Held that - AO has rightly added back the rent acquisition reserve debited to profit & loss account while computing the book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act

Issues Involved:
1. Enhancement of income under sections 143(3) and 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Arm's length principle for international transactions.
3. Entitlement to tax holiday under section 10A of the Act.
4. Addition of rent equalisation reserve to book profits under section 115JB.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C).
6. Charging of interest under section 234D.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Enhancement of Income:
The Appellant contested the enhancement of income by INR 1,00,97,208 under section 143(3) and INR 5,99,003 under section 115JB. The Tribunal noted that the enhancement was based on the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) assessment of the Appellant's international transactions and the addition of the rent equalisation reserve to book profits.

2. Arm's Length Principle for International Transactions:
The Appellant argued that the TPO and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in holding that the Appellant's international transactions did not satisfy the arm's length principle. The Tribunal examined the comparables selected by the TPO for benchmarking the Appellant's software development services and IT enabled back office support services.

- Software Development Services:
- E-Infochips Bangalore Ltd.: The Tribunal found E-Infochips functionally dissimilar due to its engagement in product and semiconductor engineering services and ordered its exclusion.
- Infinite Data Systems Pvt. Ltd.: The Tribunal noted Infinite's primary revenue from technical support and infrastructure management services and its exceptional growth rate, deeming it functionally dissimilar and ordering its exclusion.

- IT Enabled Back Office Support Services:
- TCS E-Serve International Ltd.: The Tribunal found TCS E-Serve functionally dissimilar due to its engagement in ITES/BPO services and technical services, its volatile profit margin, and its super-normal growth, ordering its exclusion.

3. Entitlement to Tax Holiday under Section 10A:
The Appellant claimed entitlement to a tax holiday under section 10A, arguing that this negated any motive to manipulate transfer prices. The Tribunal did not find this argument sufficient to overturn the TPO's adjustments.

4. Addition of Rent Equalisation Reserve to Book Profits:
The Tribunal upheld the addition of the rent equalisation reserve of INR 5,99,003 to book profits under section 115JB, citing a previous decision in the Appellant's own case for AY 2008-09, where it was determined that AS 19 (Accounting Standard) does not apply to lease agreements for land.

5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C) was premature and did not require adjudication at this stage.

6. Charging of Interest under Section 234D:
The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue of charging interest under section 234D was consequential and dependent on the final determination of the Appellant's income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, ordering the exclusion of certain comparables for benchmarking international transactions and upholding the addition of the rent equalisation reserve to book profits. The issues of penalty proceedings and interest charges were deemed premature and consequential, respectively. The appeal was thus disposed of with specific directions for reassessment based on the Tribunal's findings.

← Previous Next →