2025 (3) TMI 1458 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT - As relying on Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (7) TMI 696 - DELHI HIGH COURT M/s. Avaya India Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (7) TMI 1279 - DELHI HIGH COURT we direct to exclude the three companies Wipro Limited Infosys Ltd. and Tata Elexi Limited. Addition relating to interest on outstanding receivables - HELD THAT - Assessee has not filed any Balance Sheet or any financial statement to support its contention. We observed that whether there is a debt free entity it is normal and logical to not collect the outstanding from its AEs. As per the trade practice the terms of payment depend upon mutual agreement between the parties and it is also depend upon the market practice in this line of business. Since assessee has not submitted any agreement to submit the terms of payment already agreed between them. Therefore we are inclined to permit this issue back to the file of AO/TPO to consider the industry practice in this line of business and in case there exists mutual agreement to show that the assessee has allowed to give terms of payment as per the agreement or determined the industry average in this line of business. If the terms of payment are average period holding of the debtors within the industry average or within the mutual terms of agreement the same may be allowed. As far as interest rate is concerned in our considered view LIBOR plus 425 basis is on the higher side and may be determined upon the terms of payment agreed between parties it can be proper if the rate of interest on the basis of LIBOR may be computed - Ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core issues considered in this appeal involve the following:

Whether the final assessment order and the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are erroneous and barred by limitation.
Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) erred in making adjustments related to the provision of CAD/engineering design services, software development services, and IT-enabled services, particularly concerning the inclusion and exclusion of certain comparables.
Whether the enhancement of the appellant's income by imputing notional interest on delayed receivables from Associated Enterprises (AEs) was justified.
Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act was appropriate.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Adjustments in Transfer Pricing Comparables

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant challenged the inclusion of certain companies as comparables by the TPO, arguing functional dissimilarity. The legal framework involves the application of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) under section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court considered the functional dissimilarity of the three companies (Tata Elxsi Ltd., Infosys Ltd., and Wipro Ltd.) with the appellant's operations. The Court noted that these companies engage in high-value, diversified activities, own significant intangibles, and have high turnovers, making them unsuitable comparables for the appellant's routine services.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Court relied on previous decisions, particularly from the Delhi High Court, which excluded similar companies from comparability analyses due to their high brand value and economic scale.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from precedents to exclude the three companies from the list of comparables, aligning with the appellant's functional profile.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's reliance on various judicial precedents was accepted, while the Revenue's arguments were not found compelling enough to retain the comparables.
Conclusions: The Court directed the exclusion of Tata Elxsi Ltd., Infosys Ltd., and Wipro Ltd. from the list of comparables, allowing grounds 4.3 and 4.4.

2. Notional Interest on Delayed Receivables

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue revolves around whether outstanding receivables can be treated as international transactions and attract notional interest under section 92B of the Act.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged that outstanding receivables could constitute international transactions. However, the imputation of interest must consider industry practices and any mutual agreements between the parties.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant argued that as a debt-free entity, it should not incur interest costs. However, no supporting financial statements were provided.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court remanded the issue back to the TPO to consider industry practices and any existing agreements regarding payment terms. The interest rate based on LIBOR was deemed appropriate, but the addition of 425 basis points was considered excessive.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's argument that receivables do not independently constitute international transactions was not accepted, but the need for a detailed examination of industry practices was recognized.
Conclusions: The matter was remanded to the TPO to reassess the interest imputation based on industry norms and mutual agreements.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The Court reinforced the principle that comparables must be functionally similar, and high-value companies with significant intangibles and diversified activities are not suitable for comparison with routine service providers.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The exclusion of the three comparables was upheld, and the issue of notional interest on receivables was remanded for further examination.

The appeal was partly allowed, with directions for further proceedings as outlined above.

← Previous Next →