9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opment services. We therefore accept the plea of the Assessee that this company ought not to have been considered as comparable. KALS Information Systems Ltd. t this company was developing software products and not purely or mainly software development service provider. We therefore accept the plea of the Assessee that this company is not comparable. Accel Transmatic Ltd. to be excluded from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP M/S.Ishir Infotech Ltd. is out-sourcing its work and, therefore, has not satisfied the 25% employee cost filter and thus has to be excluded from the list of comparables And Lucid Software Ltd.nvolved in the development of software as compared to the assessee, which is only into software services. omputation of the net margin for Mega Soft Ltd. Is therefore remitted to the file of the TPO to compute the correct margin by following the direction of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. [] M/S.Infosys Technologies Limited, Tata Elxsi Ltd. (Seg.) & Wipro Limited re not comparable companies in the case of software development services provider. M/S. E-Zest Solutions Ltd., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into by the Assessee with it s Associated Enterprise (AE) under the provisions of Sec.92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 4. The Assessee provided Software Development Services to its AE. The said transaction was an international transaction with an Associated Enterprise (AE) and have to pass the Arm s Length Price (ALP) test as provided u/s.92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). In grounds No.1 to 7 the dispute is with regard to addition made consequent to determination of ALP and consequent upward revision and adjustment made to the price at which international transactions were carried out by the Assessee with its AE in respect of Software development Services. Financial Results of the Assessee for the F Y 2006-07 Description Amount Operating Revenue Rs.72,87,30,616/- Operating Cost . . . . Rs.65,60,43,681/- Operating Profit (PBIT) Rs. 7,26,86,935/- Operating Profit to Cost Ratio 11.08 % *Excluding exchange loss, finance charges and interest on term loan 5. TP A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia) Ltd 13.47% 101.04 21 R Systems International Ltd (Seg.) 15.07% 112.01 22 S I P Technologies Exports Ltd 13.90% 3.80 23 Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd (Seg.) 22.16% 343.57 24 Tata Elxsi Ltd (Seg.) 26.51% 262.58 25 Thirdware Solutions Ltd 25.12% 36.08 26 Wipro Ltd (Seg.) 33.65% 9616.09 Arithmetic Mean 25.14% Appellant's OP / TC for FY 2006-07 11.08% 6. A chart drawn by the TPO giving the related party transactions, % of export over sales, onsite revenue etc., of the final 26 comparable companies chosen by the TPO is also given as an Annexure-I to this order. 7. The TPO finally passed an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s prayed for by the Assessee, the turnover and the margins of the 20 comparable companies finally chosen by the TPO after giving effect to adjustment towards working capital as allowed by the TPO and also as claimed by the Assessee. The Chart also explains as how some of the comparable companies chosen by the TPO were not comparable for the reason that these companies were not functionally comparable. The Chart also gives the cases decided by various Benches of the ITAT where the comparable companies have been held to be not comparable with that of an Assessee providing IT Software development Services. We will proceed to consider the comparability of companies chosen by the TPO and listed in para- 5 of this order. 10. As far as comparable companies listed at Sl.No.1,2,3 and 12 of the final list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO viz., M/S.Accel Transmatic Limited (seg.), Avani Cincom Technologies Ltd., Celestial labs Limited and KALS Infosystems Ltd., are concerned, this Tribunal in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT IT (TP) No.1086/Bang/2011 for AY 07-08 held that the aforesaid companies are not comparable companies in the case of software d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erating income of IT services and sale of software products have not been provided so as to see whether the profit ratio of this company can be taken into consideration for comparing the case that of assessee. In absence of any kind of details provided by the TPO, we are unable to persuade ourselves to include it as comparable party. Learned CIT DR has provided a copy of profit loss account which shows that mainly its earning is from software exports, however, the details of percentage of export of products or services have not been given. We, therefore, reject this company also from taking into consideration for comparability analysis. It was also highlighted that the margin of this company at 52.59% which represents abnormal circumstances and profits. The following figures were placed before us:- Particulars FYs 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Operating Revenue 21761611 35477523 29342809 28039851 Operating Expns. 16417661 23249646 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason that it is into pure software development activities and is not engaged in R D activities is bad in law. 43. Further reference was also made to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Teva Pharma Private Ltd. v. Addl. CIT ITA No.6623/Mum/2011 (for AY 2007-08) in which the comparability of this company for clinical trial research segment. The relevant extract of discussion regarding this company is as follows: The learned D.R. however drew our attention to page-389 of the paper book which is an extract from the Directors report which reads as follows: The Company has developed a de novo drug design tool CELSUITE to drug discovery in, finding the lead molecules for drug discovery and protected the IPR by filing under the copy if sic (of) right/patent act. (Apprised and funded by Department of Science and Technology New Delhi) based on our insilico expertise (applying bio-informatics tools). The Company has developed a molecule to treat Leucoderma and multiple cancer and protected the IPR by filing the patent. The patent details have been discussed with Patent officials and the response is very favorable. The cloning and purificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected as a comparable being functionally different. 45. From the material available on record, it transpires that the TPO has accepted that up to AY 06-07 this company was classified as a Research and Development company. According to the TPO in AY 07- 08 this company has been classified as software development service provider in the Capitaline/Prowess database as well as in the annual report of this company. The TPO has relied on the response from this company to a notice u/s.133(6) of the Act in which it has said that it is in the business of providing software development services. The Assessee in reply to the proposal of the AO to treat this as a comparable has pointed out that this company provides software products/services as well as bioinformatics services and that the segmental data for each activity is not available and therefore this company should not be treated as comparable. Besides the above, the Assessee has point out to several references in the annual report for 31.3.2007 highlighting the fact that this company was develops biotechnology products and provides related software development services. The TPO called for segmental data at the entity level from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rivate Limited Vs. DCI, ITA No. ITA No 1386/PN/1O wherein KALS as comparable was rejected for AY 2006-07 on account of it being functionally different from software companies. The relevant extract are as follows: 16. Another issue relating to selection of comparables by the TPO is regarding inclusion of Kals Information System Ltd. The assessee has objected to its inclusion on the basis that functionally the company is not comparable. With reference to pages 185-186 of the Paper Book, it is explained that the said company is engaged in development of software products and services and is not comparable to software development services provided by the assessee. The appellant has submitted an extract on pages 185-186 of the Paper Book from the website of the company to establish that it is engaged in providing of I T enabled services and that the said company is into development of software products, etc. All these aspects have not been factually rebutted and, in our view, the said concern is liable to be excluded from the final set of comparables, and thus on this aspect, assessee succeeds. Based on all the above, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that KALS In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3D animation and therefore assessee s claim that this company was functionally different was accepted. DRP therefore directed the Assessing Officer to exclude ACCEL Transmatic Ltd. from the final list of comparables for the purpose of determining TNMM margin. 49. Besides the above, it was pointed out that this company has related party transactions which is more than the permitted level and therefore should not be taken for comparability purposes. The submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee was that if the above company should not be considered as comparable. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the TPO. 50. We have considered the submissions and are of the view that the plea of the assessee that the aforesaid company should not be treated as comparables was considered by the Tribunal in Capgemini India Ltd (supra) where the assessee was software developer. The Tribunal, in the said decision referred to by the ld. counsel for the assessee, has accepted that this company was not comparable in the case of the assessees engaged in software development services business. Accepting the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee, we hold that the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies are not comparable companies in the case of software development services provider. The nature of services rendered by the Assessee in this appeal and the Assessee in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra) are one and the same. This fact would be clear from the fact that the very same 26 companies were chosen as comparable in the case of the Assessee as well as in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra). The following were the relevant observations in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra): 22. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that these two companies are also to be excluded from the list of comparables on the basis of the finding of this Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz Research Development India Pvt. Ltd. dt 22.2.2013, wherein at pages 17 and 22 of its order the distinctions as to why these companies should be excluded are brought out. He submitted that the facts of the case before us are similar and, therefore, the said decision is applicable to the assessee's case also. 23. The learned DR however objected to the exclusion of these two companies from the list of compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in computing its net margin. He has drawn our attention to the order of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy EBusiness Software India Pvt.Ltd., at para 24 to 27 at page 18, wherein the error in computing the net margin of this company has been taken note of and it has been directed as under: (a) Megasoft Ltd. : 24. This company was chosen as a comparable by the TPO. The objection of the assessee is that there are two segments in this company viz., (i) software development segment, and (ii) software product segment. The Assessee is a pure software services provider and not a software product developer. According to the Assessee there is no break up of revenue between software products and software services business on a standalone basis of this comparable. The TPO relied on information which was given by this company in which this company had explained that it has two divisions viz., BLUEALLY DIVISION and XIUS-BCGI DIVISION. Xius-BCGI Division does the business of product software. This company develops packaged products for the wireless and convergent telecom industry. These products are sold as packaged products to customers. While implementing these standardized pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perating Revenues Rs.63,71,32,544 Segmental Operating Expenses Rs.51,75,13,211 Operating Profit Rs.11,96,19,333 OP/TC (PLI) 23.11% 26. It was reiterated that in the given circumstances only PLI of software service segment viz., 23.11% ought to have been selected for comparison. 27. It was further submitted that the learned TPO in case of other comparable, similarly placed, had adopted the margins of only the software service segment for comparability purposes. Consistent with such stand, it was submitted that the margins of the software segment only should be adopted in the case of Megasoft also, in contrast to the entity level margins. 28. Computation of the net margin for Mega Soft Ltd. Is therefore remitted to the file of the TPO to compute the correct margin by following the direction of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd . 16. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to compute the correct margin of Mega Soft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (b) Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1054/Bang/2011) 12.3 Per contra, opposing the contentions of the assessee, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that comparability cannot be decided merely on the basis of scale of operations and the operating margins of this company have not been extraordinary. In view of this, the learned Departmental Representative supported the decision of the TPO to include this company in the list of comparable companies. 12.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidence to establish that this company is functionally dis-similar and different from the assessee and hence is not comparable and the finding rendered in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for Assessment Year 2007-08 is applicable to this year also. The argument put forth by assessee's is that Infosys Technologies Ltd is not functionally comparable since it owns significant intangible and has huge revenues from software products. It is also seen that the break up of revenue from software service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.227/Bang/2010) has held that a company owning intangibles cannot be compared to a low risk captive service provider who does not own any such intangible and hence does not have an additional advantage in the market. As the assessee in the case on hand does not own any intangibles, following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e. 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that this company cannot be considered as a comparable to the assessee. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to omit this company from the set of comparable companies in the case on hand for the year under consideration. 14.0 (6) Tata Elxsi Ltd. 14.1 This company was a comparable selected by the TPO. Before the TPO, the assessee had objected to the inclusion of this company in the set of comparables on several counts like, functional dis-similarity, significant R D activity, brand value, size, etc. The TPO, however, rejected the contention put forth by the assessee and included this company in the set of comparables. 14.2 Before us, it was reiterated that this company is not functionally comparable to the assessee as it per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered for inclusion in the set of comparables in the case on hand. It is ordered accordingly. 18. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid companies from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP. 19. As far as comparable companies at Sl.No.5, 18, 19 and 25 of the final list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO are concerned, viz., M/S. E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Quintegra Solutions Limited and Third ware Solutions Ltd., this Tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. I.T (T.P) A. No.1303/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) order dated 28.11.2013 was pleased to hold that the aforesaid companies are not comparable with a company engaged in Software Development Services such as the Assessee. The following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal: 14. E-Zest Solutions Ltd. 14.1 This company was selected by the TPO as a comparable. Before the TPO, the assessee had objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable on the ground that it was functionally different from the assessee. The TPO had rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es performed by this company are similar to the software development services performed by the assessee. From the details on record, we find that while the assessee is into software development services, this company i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd., is rendering product development services and high end technical services which come under the category of KPO services. It has been held by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Capital I-Q Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. Supra) that KPO services are not comparable to software development services and are therefore not comparable. Following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the aforesaid case, we hold that this company, i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd. be omitted from the set of comparables for the period under consideration in the case on hand. The A.O. /TPO is accordingly directed. 15. Thirdware Solutions Ltd. (Segment) 15.1 This company was proposed for inclusion in the list of comparables by the TPO. Before the TPO, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables on the ground that its turnover was in excess of ₹ 500 Crores. Bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable for the reasons that this company being engaged in software product designing and analytic services, it is functionally different and further that segmental results are not available. The TPO rejected the assessee's objections on the ground that as per the Annual Report for the company for Financial Year 2007-08, it is mainly a software development company and as per the details furnished in reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act, software development constitutes 96% of its revenues. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer included this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., in the list of comparables as it qualified the functionality criterion. 17.1.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable submitting that this company is functionally different and also that there are several other factors on which this company cannot be taken as a comparable. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that : (i) This company is engaged in software designing services and analytic services and therefore it is not purely a software develo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the year. The TPO rejected the assessee's objections holding that this company qualifies all the filters applied by the TPO. On the issue of acquisitions, the TPO rejected the assessee's objections observing that the assessee has not adduced any evidence as to how this event had an any influence on the pricing or the margin earned. 18.1.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company for the reason that it is functionally different and also that there are other factors for which this company cannot be considered as a comparable. It was submitted that, (i) Quintegra solutions Ltd., the company under consideration, is engaged in product engineering services and not in purely software development services. The Annual Report of this company also states that it is engaged in preparatory software products and is therefore not similar to the assessee in the case on hand. (ii) In its Annual Report, the services rendered by the company are described as under : Leveraging its proven global model, Quintegra provides a full range of custom IT solutions (such as development, testing, maintenance, SAP, product engineering and infrastructur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.227/Bang/2010 dt.9.11.2012) has held that if a company possesses or owns intangibles or IPRs, then it cannot be considered as a comparable company to one that does not own intangibles and requires to be omitted form the list of comparables, as in the case on hand. 18.3.2 We also find from the Annual Report of Quintegra Solutions Ltd. that there have been acquisitions made by it in the period under consideration. It is settled principle that where extraordinary events have taken place, which has an effect on the performance of the company, then that company shall be removed from the list of comparables. 18.3.3 Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we direct that this company i.e. Quintegra Solutions Ltd. be excluded from the list of comparables in the case on hand since it is engaged in proprietary software products and owns its own intangibles unlike the assessee in the case on hand who is a software service provider. 20. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the afores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cern for the purposes of comparability with the assessee s IT-Services Segment. The TPO however, noticed that though the application software segment of the said concern may be engaged in selling of some of the software products which are developed by it, however, the said concern was not into trading of software products as there were no cost of purchases debited in the Profit Loss Account. Though the TPO agreed that the quantum of revenue from sale of products was not available as per the financial statements of the said concern, but as the basic function of the said concern was software development, it was includible as it was functionally comparable to the assessee s segment of IT-Services. 18. Before us, apart from reiterating the points raised before the TPO and the DRP, the Ld. Counsel submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment year of 2006-07, the said concern was evaluated by the assessee and was found functionally incomparable. For the said purpose, our reference has been invited to pages 421 to 542 of the Paper book, which is the copy of the Transfer Pricing study undertaken by the assessee for the A.Y. 2006-07, and in particular, attention was invite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso we find that the said concern is liable to be excluded from the list of comparables. 22. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid company from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP. 23. The AO is directed to compute the Arithmetic mean by excluding the aforesaid companies from the list of comparable. According to the learned counsel for the Assessee, if the submissions of the assessee are accepted, then the arithmetic mean of the comparables retained would be within the range of +/- 5% of the Assessee s Net Margin. Therefore, the other grounds raised in the appeal are not adjudicated at this stage. The learned counsel for the Assessee has however sought liberty to urge the said grounds in any future proceeding, appellate or otherwise, and in these proceedings at a future point in time. The prayer sought by the learned counsel for the Assessee in this regard is accepted. 24. Ground No.8 raised by the Assessee in its appeal is with regard to method of computation of deduction u/s.10A of the Act. The Assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
