9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 803 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - Comparability - HELD THAT - Assessee is a financial outsourcing company rendering IT enabled accounting and financial services, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of total taxable income. 2. Transfer pricing adjustment and arm's length pricing. 3. Rejection and inclusion of comparable companies. 4. Allocation methodology for indirect costs. 5. Inclusion of specific companies as comparables. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). 7. Monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Total Taxable Income: The assessee challenged the determination of total taxable income by the AO/TPO, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee reported NIL income, but the AO/TPO made adjustments leading to a taxable income. 2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment and Arm's Length Pricing: The AO/TPO made a transfer pricing adjustment by rejecting the assessee's internal TNMM method and applying the external TNMM method. The assessee's internal method showed margins from AE transactions higher than non-AE transactions, indicating arm's length pricing. However, the TPO disregarded this and made an adjustment of ?1,87,79,675/-. 3. Rejection and Inclusion of Comparable Companies: The TPO rejected certain comparable companies and included others. The CIT(A) directed the inclusion of Microgenetics Systems Ltd. as a comparable. The assessee argued against the exclusion of R Systems International Ltd. and the inclusion of TCS e-Serve Ltd., Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and Accentia Technologies Ltd. The Tribunal remitted the issue of R Systems International Ltd. to the AO/TPO for fresh examination, considering relevant judicial precedents. 4. Allocation Methodology for Indirect Costs: The TPO rejected the assessee's allocation of indirect costs based on desk utilization ratio and instead used the ratio of employee cost. The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's methodology, leading to a reduction in the adjustment amount. 5. Inclusion of Specific Companies as Comparables: - R Systems International Ltd.: The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh examination. - TCS e-Serve Ltd.: The Tribunal held that TCS e-Serve Ltd. is not a valid comparable due to its high-end services, brand value, and high turnover. - Acropetal Technologies Ltd. and Accentia Technologies Ltd.: The Tribunal directed the exclusion of these companies as they are functionally different from the assessee. 6. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings are premature as they were only initiated and not concluded. 7. Monetary Limit for Filing Appeals by the Revenue: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit of ?50,00,000/- for filing appeals before the ITAT. The tax effect in this case was ?33,85,022/-, which is below the prescribed limit. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-examine certain comparables and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the allocation methodology. The Tribunal also excluded certain companies from the list of comparables based on functional dissimilarity.
|
