9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible view. Grounds No. 3 to 8 are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Management fee - We deem it just and proper to set aside the findings and restore the issue to the file of the AO/TPO to re-examine the issue in the light of the findings on this issue in [ 2021 (10) TMI 1358 - ITAT HYDERABAD] Adhoc disallowance of 20% of foreign outward remittances - AR submitted that the learned DRP did not consider the submissions of the assessee, and this necessitates the set aside of the findings of the learned DRP and restoration of the issue - HELD THAT:- We find the request of the AR reasonable and restore the issue to the file of learned Assessing Officer/learned TPO for considering the above enumerated discrepancies. Ground is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Non-grant of credit of the tax deducted at sources attributable to the Infor (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd . , which was amalgamated with the assessee attributable to the assessee - HELD THAT:- We direct the AO to verify the record and allow the same, if it is found to be correct and proper. Appeal of the assessee is accordingly treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. - SHRI RAMA KA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directions made by the Learned DRP. 5. Grounds No. 1 ,2 and 16 to 18 of this appeal are general in nature. Grounds No. 3 to 8 relate to the Transfer Pricing adjustment on account of provision of IT enabled services (ITeS); Grounds No. 9 to 11 are in respect of interest on receivables; whereas Ground No. 12 is in respect of management fee. Grounds No. 13 and 14 are in respect of corporate issue relating to the adhoc disallowance at 20% of the foreign outward remittances, short credit of TDS. At the outset, learned AR submitted that the assessee is not pressing the issue relating to the interest on receivables. Recording the same, Grounds No. 9 to 11 are dismissed. 6. Coming to the issue relating to the Transfer Pricing adjustment on account of the benchmarking of ITeS segment, relevant facts are that the turnover of the assessee during the assessment year 2018-19 was at Rs. 49.7 crores and the margin in this segment was at 11.29%. Assessee had chosen nine comparables with a median of 7.54% of margin. Learned TPO rejected certain comparables and on a fresh search, selected 17 comparables with a median of 24.84% and accordingly suggested an adjustment to the tune of Rs. 6.05 crores. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. 10. Nextly, he submitted that the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Acusis Software India (P) Ltd., vs. ITO (2018) 98 taxmann.com 183 (Karnataka), approved the view taken by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal that the application of tolerance range of turnover of ten times on both sides of assessee s turnover was proper. Same was the view taken by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India (P) Ltd., (2018) 96 taxmann.com 643 (Karnataka). Consistent with the said view, the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal also in the case of iMedx Information Services (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT (2023) 150 taxmann.com 217 (Hyderabad Trib.) held that the application of tolerance range of turnover of ten times on both ends to fix the turnover filter would meet the ends of justice. 11. Per contra, learned DR vehemently disputed the objection of the assessee basing on the turnover and brand. By inviting our attention to the table relating to the analysis of the impact of turnover over profit margin of Infosys Technology Ltd., at page No. 22 of the learned DRP s order, learned DR submitted that over a period of 20 years, the turnover of this co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O to take the range of turnover filter at ten times on both the ends and conduct search afresh to take a plausible view. Grounds No. 3 to 8 are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Coming to Ground No. 12 relating to management fee, learned AR submitted that in the past two years, this issue has been restored to the file of the learned Assessing Officer and in tune with the same, for this year also, this issue may be restored to the filed of the learned Assessing Officer. 16. Learned DR submitted that there is a catena of decisions on this aspect and in the cases of Akzonobel India (P) Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT [2022] 145 taxmann.com 468 (Delhi), Taegu Tec India (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (LTU) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 81 (Bangalore-Trib), Yanfeng India Automotive Interior Systems (P) Ltd vs. JCIT (OSD) [2023] 148 taxmann.com 332 (Ahmedabad- Trib), DRHL India Services (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 334 (Bangalore-Trib), Safran Engineering Services (P) Ltd., vs. ACIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 77 (Bangalore-Trib), AB Mauri India (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT [2023] 147 taxmann.com 214 (Chennai-Trib) and Akzo Nobel India Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 369 (Delhi-Trib). He, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedents (supra) decision that the benefit test also not to be applied whilst determining NIL Arm's Length Price on the ground that the taxpayer had not in fact derived any benefit from the international transactions in issue. The assessee shall also be at liberty to file its additional evidence; if any, in consequential proceedings as well. The assessee's instant 14th and 15th substantive grounds are accepted for statistical purposes in above terms therefore . 18. On a careful consideration of the above arguments and the observation of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, we deem it just and proper to set aside the findings and restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer/learned TPO to re-examine the issue in the light of the findings on this issue in ITA(TP) No. 198/Hyd/2021. We hold and direct so. Ground No. 12 is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 19. On the aspect of adhoc disallowance of 20% of foreign outward remittances covered by Ground No. 13, learned AR submitted that the learned DRP did not consider the submissions of the assessee. He submitted that the draft assessment order was passed when the assessee was in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
