2018 (7) TMI 659 - HC - Income Tax

TPA - comparable selection - ALP - substantial question of law or fact - Held that - The controversy involved herein is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in M/S. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD. 2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , wherein it has been observed that unless the finding of the Tribunal is found ex facie perverse, the Appeal u/s. 260-A of the Act, is not maintainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Substantial questions of law raised by the Appellants-Revenue regarding Transfer Pricing and Working Capital Adjustment.

Transfer Pricing Issues:
The Appellants-Revenue raised several substantial questions of law related to Transfer Pricing. The Tribunal directed the TPO to consider only comparables with turnovers between ?1 to 200 crores, excluding certain companies with turnovers exceeding ?200 crores. The Tribunal also excluded specific companies like Bodhtree Consulting Limited based on functional differences. The Appellants-Revenue challenged these directions, questioning the correlation between turnover and profitability, the relevance of company size in comparability, and the exclusion of certain comparables. However, the Appellants-Revenue did not press questions 6 and 7 during the proceedings.

Working Capital Adjustment Issue:
Regarding the Working Capital Adjustment, the Tribunal directed the TPO to re-work the margins of comparables by excluding certain companies from the analysis. The Appellants-Revenue contended that disturbing any criteria necessitates a fresh comparability analysis, and a piecemeal approach undermines the concept of comparability. Additionally, the Tribunal's deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer was questioned in light of amendments to the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's direction to reduce foreign currency expenditure for computing deductions under specific sections was also challenged for not aligning with statutory provisions.

Judgment Analysis:
The High Court reviewed the Tribunal's findings and held that no substantial question of law arose in the case. Citing a previous judgment, the Court emphasized that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act require establishing perversity in the Tribunal's findings. The Court clarified that issues related to the selection of comparables and application of filters do not constitute substantial questions of law. It further stated that dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's factual findings alone does not warrant invoking Section 260-A. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal by the Appellants-Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision. No costs were awarded in this matter.