9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1023 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT - Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee as engaged in the business of providing Capital Software Services and Marketing Support Services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) need to be deselected from final list. Deduction u/s 10A - claim of expenditure is foreign currency from export turnover and not from total turnover - HELD THAT - Following the aforementioned decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT we find the ld. CIT (Appeals) has relied on judicial decisions and we uphold the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the expenditure from both export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act and dismissed the grounds of appeal of the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Transfer Pricing adjustments and selection of comparables. 3. Inclusion of service tax refund in profit for deduction under Section 10A. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act: The assessee, a wholly-owned subsidiary of a US company, claimed a deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) made adjustments to the Arm's Length Price (ALP) and reduced the deduction claimed, leading to an increased total income assessment. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, but the assessee contested the exclusion of certain comparables and the inclusion of service tax refunds in the profit for deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the expenditure from both export turnover and total turnover for computing the deduction under Section 10A, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Tata Elxsi Ltd. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s reliance on judicial decisions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deduction under Section 10A. 2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments and Selection of Comparables: The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made adjustments to the ALP by rejecting the assessee's comparables and selecting new ones. The assessee argued for the exclusion of Infosys Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd., citing functional dissimilarity and significant differences in turnover and business models. The Tribunal agreed, directing the TPO to exclude these companies from the final list of comparables. The assessee also sought the inclusion of Akshay Software Technologies Ltd., which the Tribunal restored to the TPO for verification. In the marketing services segment, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of four comparables (Asian Business Exhibition & Conferences Ltd., HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Hindustan Housing Co. Ltd., and Killick Agencies & Marketing Ltd.) due to functional dissimilarity, following co-ordinate Bench decisions. 3. Inclusion of Service Tax Refund in Profit for Deduction under Section 10A: The CIT(A) observed that the service tax refund could not be considered as profit derived from the undertaking or business of the assessee and should be excluded from the deduction under Section 10A. The Tribunal remitted this issue to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the grounds of appeal for statistical purposes. Separate Judgments Delivered by the Judges: The judgment does not indicate separate judgments delivered by the judges. The order was pronounced collectively by the Tribunal. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the exclusion of certain comparables and the treatment of service tax refunds, directing the TPO and AO for further verification and fresh consideration on specific issues. The Tribunal's decisions were based on functional dissimilarity and adherence to judicial precedents.
|
