2019 (9) TMI 1747 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - selection of comparable companies - companies excluded on turnover filter - HELD THAT - Cogniti Technologies Ltd and Lucid Software Ltd we are of the view that they should be restored to the file of AO/TPO for examining them afresh in the light of new facts brought before us. Accordingly we restore both the companies to the file of AO/TPO. Sankhya Infotech Ltd the claim put forth before us by the assessee is contradictory to the findings given by TPO. Hence we are of the view that this company also requires examination afresh. Accordingly we restore this company also to the file of AO/TPO. Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd (Seg) CAT Technologies Ltd and Evoke Technologies P Ltd - We notice that the Special bench of Tribunal has held in the case of DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pte. Ltd. 2009 (10) TMI 591 - ITAT CHANDIGARH that the non-comparable companies even if it was selected by the assessee in TP study could be excluded since there is no estoppels against law. There should not be any dispute that the ultimate purpose of the Transfer Pricing analysis is to determine the Arms Length Price of International transactions which is sought to be proved by comparing the financials of comparable companies. In the instant case the assessee has prayed for consideration of above said three companies before Ld DRP i.e. during the course of assessment proceedings itself. Accordingly we are of the view that consideration of above said companies would help to determine the ALP of the international transactions. Accordingly we admit the claim of the assessee. However since the above said three companies require examination at the end of AO/TPO we restore these three companies to the file of AO/TPO for examining them.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in this appeal pertain exclusively to the selection of comparable companies for Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment under the Income Tax Act. Specifically, the issues were:

• Whether the comparable companies selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) were appropriate and in accordance with the statutory framework and judicial precedents.
• Whether the turnover filter should be applied to exclude certain companies whose turnover significantly exceeded that of the assessee.
• Whether certain companies rejected by the TPO but selected by the assessee should be restored as comparable companies for TP analysis.
• Whether additional companies proposed by the assessee for inclusion as comparables, but not considered by the TPO due to procedural reasons, should be admitted and examined.

All other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated as the appellant restricted arguments to the issue of comparable selection.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Appropriateness of Comparable Companies Selected by TPO

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Transfer Pricing provisions under the Income Tax Act require that international transactions between associated enterprises be priced at arm's length. The arm's length price is determined by comparing the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of the assessee with that of comparable independent companies engaged in similar business activities. The TNMM (Transactional Net Margin Method) was adopted by the assessee, with Operating Margin over Operating Cost as the PLI.

Judicial precedents emphasize the need for selecting comparable companies that are functionally similar, operate in similar market conditions, and are comparable in size and scale to the assessee. The turnover filter is a recognized criterion to ensure comparability in scale.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The TPO rejected the assessee's set of comparable companies citing various deficiencies and selected an alternate set of seven companies with an average operating margin of 20.90%, which after working capital adjustment became 21.47%, leading to a Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.96.62 lakhs.

The DRP excluded one company (ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd) from TPO's list but confirmed the remaining six.

Key evidence and findings: The TPO's selected companies included several large entities with turnovers far exceeding the assessee's Rs.16.19 crores. The assessee challenged the inclusion of five companies whose turnover exceeded Rs.200 crores, arguing that such companies are not comparable in scale.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal noted that the turnover filter is a valid criterion for comparability. Both parties agreed that the five large companies should be excluded based on turnover filter. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to exclude these five companies from the comparable set.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue initially did not dispute the turnover filter argument, concurring with the assessee's submission and a coordinate bench's precedent. The Tribunal accepted this concurrence and excluded the five companies accordingly.

Conclusion: The turnover filter is a valid and necessary criterion for selection of comparable companies. Large companies with turnovers disproportionate to the assessee cannot be considered comparable.

Issue 2: Restoration of Certain Comparable Companies Rejected by TPO

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The selection of comparables must be based on functional similarity and availability of reliable data. Prior acceptance of a company as comparable in earlier years may be relevant but not conclusive. The Tribunal has discretion to restore companies for fresh examination if new facts are brought on record.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee challenged the TPO's rejection of three companies: Cogniti Technologies Ltd, Lucid Software Ltd, and Sankhya Infotech Ltd.

• Cogniti Technologies Ltd: Rejected by TPO on functional difference (software testing services). Assessee argued it was accepted as comparable by TPO in AY 2014-15.
• Lucid Software Ltd: Rejected due to absence of data in the database. Assessee submitted data was furnished.
• Sankhya Infotech Ltd: Rejected on forex filter failure and functional difference (software product development). Assessee contended it was engaged only in software services during the relevant year.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the assessee brought new facts and clarifications not considered by the TPO. The claim regarding Sankhya Infotech Ltd was contradictory to TPO's findings, necessitating fresh examination.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal restored all three companies to the file of AO/TPO for re-examination in light of the new facts and submissions.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue did not oppose restoration but the Tribunal emphasized the need for fresh scrutiny by AO/TPO.

Conclusion: Restoration of comparables for fresh examination is warranted where new facts or clarifications are brought forward that were not previously considered.

Issue 3: Admission of Additional Comparable Companies Proposed by Assessee

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Transfer Pricing regulations and judicial pronouncements allow the assessee to propose comparable companies at any stage of assessment proceedings to determine the arm's length price. The Special Bench ruling in DCIT vs. Quark Systems P Ltd (42 DTR 414) held that non-comparable companies selected by the assessee can be excluded, but there is no estoppel against law preventing the assessee from proposing comparables for consideration.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee proposed inclusion of three additional companies (Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd, CAT Technologies Ltd, Evoke Technologies P Ltd) before the DRP, which were rejected on the ground that the claim was not made before the TPO.

The Tribunal noted that the purpose of the Transfer Pricing study is to determine the arm's length price and there is no statutory bar against the assessee making such claims before appellate authorities. Since the claim was made before the DRP during assessment proceedings, it was admissible.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's submissions before the DRP and the absence of any statutory prohibition on making such claims before appellate authorities.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal admitted the claim and restored these three companies to the file of AO/TPO for examination.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue relied on the DRP's rejection but the Tribunal emphasized the overriding objective of determining ALP accurately and fairly.

Conclusion: The assessee's claim for inclusion of additional comparables before appellate authorities is valid and such companies must be examined afresh.

Issue 4: Procedural Fairness and Opportunity to be Heard

The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of being heard while the AO/TPO re-examines the restored and admitted comparable companies. The AO/TPO must consider the assessee's contentions and take appropriate decisions in accordance with law.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's key legal reasoning and holdings are as follows:

"The turnover filter is a valid criterion for selection of comparable companies and companies with turnover disproportionate to that of the assessee cannot be considered comparable."

"Where new facts are brought before the Tribunal which were not considered by the TPO, restoration of rejected comparable companies to the file of AO/TPO for fresh examination is warranted."

"There is no estoppel against law preventing the assessee from proposing comparable companies before appellate authorities, and such claims must be admitted and examined to determine the arm's length price."

"The ultimate purpose of Transfer Pricing analysis is to determine the arm's length price of international transactions, and all relevant comparable companies should be considered to achieve this objective."

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by directing the exclusion of five large companies from the comparable set, restoring six companies (three rejected by TPO and three newly proposed) for fresh examination by AO/TPO, and emphasizing procedural fairness. The matter was remanded for reconsideration in light of these directions to ensure determination of arm's length price in accordance with law.