Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1407 - ITAT BANGALORETP Adjustment - treatment of royalty paid by assessee to its AE - AR submitted that, both authorities below proceeded on the footing that, no evidence has been provided by assessee to prove tangible benefit derived from AE for which royalty has been paid by assessee - HELD THAT:- As observed that assessee placed substantial evidence which was not before the authorities below for consideration. We are therefore inclined to set aside this issue back to Ld.TPO/AO, for determination of this issue in the light of these documents vis-a-vis exclusive license agreement entered into by assessee with its AE, as per which royalty has been paid. Ld.TPO is directed to verify details, and if necessary, called for any further documents in order to establish true nature of transaction regarding payment of royalties by assessee and consider the claim of assessee as per law. Comparable selection - functional similarity - HELD THAT:- Assessee is mainly into offshore research and development service provider and these services are akin to software development services. Comparibility is to be carried out on broad object of benchmarking international transaction and according to the law laid down under section 92B of the Act, read with rule 10 B (2) Income tax Rules, 1963. Comparables must be similar in material aspects and must be compared on the basis of the products/services characteristics, functions undertaken, assets used and risk assumed. Merely because certain comparables has been upheld for its exclusion/inclusion by various decisions, does not ipso facto lead to exclusion/inclusion in a given set of facts. In our considered opinion, exclusion/inclusion of any comparables must be strictly analysed on basis of FAR, in accordance with rule 10 B (2). We also are of opinion that comparables selected must be for the relevant year which is to be compared and unless contemporaneous data as section 92D read with Rule 10 D (4), is not available for the relevant year, multiple year data should not be used. Infosys technologies Ltd - This comparable has a high turnover with the huge margin of 40.3% as compared to 9% earned by assessee. The turnover filter fixed by Ld.TPO does not satisfy for inclusion of this comparable. Further it is observed that this comparable owns huge intangibles, as it undertakes, research and development activities, owns branded/proprietary products. Whereas, in case of assessee, is contract service provider for its AE’s. Further that in the process of software development, in the event any intangibles are created, the same is exclusively owned by AE. Under such circumstances we do not find appropriate for this comparable to be included to determine arms length price. Accordingly we direct Ld.TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list. KALS Information Systems Ltd - Excellent from the audited accounts and annual reports placed in the paper book in respect of this comparable it is observed that this company is engaged in development of software and software products since its inception. Further it is observed that in the year 2000 this company has been converted into a public limited company is which itself makes it not a fit comparable with assessee who is a captive service provider to its AE is only in respect of technical assistance. Accordingly we direct this company to be excluded from the final list of comparables. Tata Elxi Ltd (Seg.) - This comparable caters basically in providing software development services wherein, huge intangibles are generated owned by this comparable. It is also observed that this comparable is a group concern of TATA, which makes it to be economically different with that of assessee’s who undertakes limited risks and provides technical assistance to its AE’s in products developed for AE. We do not find this comparable to be functionally similar in any manner whatsoever with that of assessee. Accordingly we direct this comparable to be excluded from the final list. Accel Transmatic Ltd (Seg.) - TPO used segmental information in respect of products of this comparable. However, from various products developed by this comparable, it is observed that, they are not into contract software development, which is the case of assessee, developing software for its AE only, for which assessee is remunerated on cost +10% markup. Further that in the process of software development, in the event any intangibles are created, the same is exclusively owned by AE. As we have already analyse the functions and the risks assumed, it is observed that assessee do not even undertake the pricing risk as the prices are decided by its AE only. Under such circumstances we do not find it functionally similar even though taking the segmental details of sale of products as there is a huge difference in the products sold by this comparable with that of assessee - direct Ld.TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list. Megasoft Ltd - This comparable should not be used as there exists contradictions in the details available on public domain vis-a-vis the information gathered by Ld.TPO under section 133 (6). Deduction u/s 10A - exclusion of telecommunication expenses while computing deduction - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Tata Elxsi Ltd [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] on identical issue held that telecommunication expenses is to be included while computing deduction under section 10 A of the act as it is directly linked with earning of income. Ld CIT DR has not brought before us any contradictory/distinguishable facts in respect of present case before us. Respectfully following above we direct Ld.AO to include telecommunication expenses while computing exempt income u/s10A of the Act. Accordingly the grounds raised by assessee stands allowed.
|