9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1359 - AT - Income TaxTPA - comparable selection criteria - Held that - Assessee is engaged in providing software development services of its holding company thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list. Computing deduction u/s.10A - excluding leaseline expenses from the export turnover on the ground that these expenses are attributable to delivery of software outside India from the export turnover - Held that - Taking into consideration the decision rendered by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd 2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT we are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to exclude telecommunication charges and insurance charges incurred be excluded both from export turnover and total turnover as has been prayed for by the assessee in the alternative.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions. 2. Inclusion of reimbursement of expenses in operating cost. 3. Application of turnover filter for selecting comparable companies. 4. Functional comparability of selected companies. 5. Exclusion of certain expenses from export turnover while computing deduction under Section 10A. Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions: The Assessee, a subsidiary of FCG Software Service Inc., USA, engaged in providing software development services, disputed the addition made due to the ALP determination and the consequent upward revision and adjustment made to the price of international transactions with its AE. The Assessee's operating profit margin was 15.33%, which it claimed was within the (+) (-) 5% range of the arithmetic mean of comparable companies' profit margins (11%). However, the TPO chose 20 comparable companies with an arithmetic mean of 20.68%, adjusted to 20.44% after factoring in the working capital adjustment. The TPO computed the ALP, resulting in a shortfall of Rs. 3,95,05,000, treated as a transfer pricing adjustment under Section 92CA. 2. Inclusion of reimbursement of expenses in operating cost: The Assessee argued that the reimbursement of Rs. 8,05,93,261 received from its AE should not be added to the operating cost as it was a reimbursement of actual costs incurred. The TPO included this amount in the operating cost, stating that it was substantial and not routed through the profit and loss account. The DRP confirmed this adjustment. The Tribunal, however, directed the TPO/AO to re-examine this issue in light of the material provided by the Assessee, following the ruling in the case of LG Soft India (P) Ltd. 3. Application of turnover filter for selecting comparable companies: The Assessee raised an additional ground of appeal regarding the application of a turnover filter, arguing that companies with turnovers beyond Rs. 200 crores should not be compared with the Assessee, whose turnover was less than Rs. 100 crores. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground, referencing the decision in the case of Triology E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd., and held that companies with turnovers above Rs. 200 crores should be excluded from the list of comparables. The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the arithmetic mean by excluding these companies. 4. Functional comparability of selected companies: The Assessee contended that certain companies chosen by the TPO were not functionally comparable. Specifically, KALS Information Systems Limited and Accel Transmatic Limited were argued to be functionally different. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in the case of Triology E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd., held that these companies were not comparable and should be excluded from the list. Additionally, companies with related party transactions exceeding 15% were also excluded based on previous Tribunal decisions. 5. Exclusion of certain expenses from export turnover while computing deduction under Section 10A: The Assessee argued against the exclusion of lease line expenses from the export turnover. Alternatively, the Assessee requested that if these expenses are excluded from the export turnover, they should also be excluded from the total turnover. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., directed the AO to exclude telecommunication charges and insurance charges from both export turnover and total turnover. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to re-examine the inclusion of reimbursements in operating costs, exclude certain companies from the list of comparables based on turnover and functional dissimilarity, and adjust the computation of export turnover for Section 10A deductions.
|
