Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Broadcom India Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 11 (2) , Bangalore

2015 (7) TMI 46 - ITAT BANGALORE

Transfer pricing adjustment - selection of comparable challenged - Held that:- Respectivly folllowing the judgment of Trilogy E-Business Software India (P.) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. Circle 12(4). Bangalore [2013 (1) TMI 672 - ITAT BANGALORE] Flextronics Software Systems Ltd.,iGate Global Solutions Ltd.,Mindtree Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd.,Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.,Tata Elxsi Ltd.,Wipro Ltd. and Infosys Technologies Ltd. should be excluded from the list of com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the same with the profit margin of the Assessee in accordance with the provisions of Sec.92C of the Act.

Computing deduction u/s.10A - Held that:- As 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, internet charges etc., both from export turno .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

61 (Act). 2. The Assessee has filed concise grounds of appeal and those grounds are taken up for consideration. Grounds No.1 to 6 of the concise grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee relate to the addition made by the AO of ₹ 3,42,71,224/- to the total income of the Assessee on account of adjustment in the arm s length price(ALP) of international transaction entered into by the Assessee with it s Associated Enterprise (AE) under the provisions of Sec.92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er authorities but owing to subsequent judicial pronouncements on the issue in the case of identical companies engaged in the business of software development service taking a view that this company is not comparable with a software development service provider such as the Assessee, the Assessee now seeks exclusion of this company from the list of comparable companies. The Assessee places reliance on the decision of the Special Bench Chandigarh in the case of Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 307 ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

domain i.e., published annual report of these two companies.. Therefore facts necessary to apply the filter sought to be relied upon by the Assessee in the additional ground of appeal are already available on record. Therefore there can be no valid objection to deciding the question of applying the aforesaid filter, if otherwise it is found to be a valid filter. On the question of the Assessee having chosen the company as comparable and therefore cannot be permitted to chance its stand now, we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the difficulties with transfer pricing analysis, it would be appropriate for both taxpayers and tax administrations to take special care and to use restraint in relying on the burden of proof in the course of the examination of a transfer pricing case. More particularly, as a matter of good practice the burden of proof should not be misused by tax administrations or taxpayers as a justification for making groundless or unverifiable assertions about transfer pricing. A tax administration should .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t taxpayer is not estopped from pointing out a mistake in the assessment though such mistake is the result of evidence adduced by the taxpayer. 37. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. For the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done due to some mistakes on its part. 38. Accordingly, on facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that taxpayer is not estopped .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re revenue authorities. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration of claim of the taxpayer and make a de novo adjudication of the arm s length price after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. 4. We also find that the aforesaid company was held to be software product company and therefore not comparable with software development service provider such as the Assessee in several d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rk Systems(supra), there cannot be any tax liability on the basis of admission and the determination of tax liability has to be in accordance with law. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, we are of the view that the additional ground of appeal deserves to be admitted for adjudication. Accordingly, the additional ground is admitted for adjudication. 5. The Assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Broadcom Corporation USA. The Assessee rendered software development services to it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o 12.09 % 6. Comparable ultimately selected by TPO and their arithmetic mean : Sl.No Name of company OP/TC Turnover Rs. In Crores 1 Accel Transmatic Ltd (Seg. 21.11% 9.68 2 Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd 52.59% 3.55 3 Celestial Labs Ltd 58.35% 14.13 4 Datamatics Ltd 1.38% 54.51 5 E-Zest Solutions Ltd 36.12% 6.26 6 Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (Seg.) 25.31% 848.66 7 Geometric Ltd (Seg.) 10.71% 158.38 8 Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd 36.63% 178.63 9 iGate Global Solutions Ltd .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2.01 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 12.09% 7. The TPO finally passed an order u/s. 92CA of the Act and on the basis of the comparables set out above, arrived at arithmetic mean of 25.14%. After factoring the working capital adjustment of 0.97%, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Annexure-C) 0.97% Adj.Arithmetic mean PLI 24.17% Arm s Length Price: Operating Cost ₹ 28,37,18,774/- Arms Length Margin 24.17% of the operating cost Arms Length Price (ALP) At 124.17% of operating cost Rs.35,22,93,602/- 23.7 Price received vis-à-vis the Arms Length Price: The price charged by the tax payer to its Associated Enterprises is compared to the Arms Length Price as under: Arms Length Price (ALP) At 124.17% of operating cost Rs.35,22,93,602/- Price charged in the internati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e total income of the assessee by the AO in the fair order of assessment. Against the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee filed a chart explaining 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 development services provider. The nature of services .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No.1064/Bang/2011 for AY 07-08 order dated 23.11.2012. The following were the relevant observations in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra):- 18. As regards the group 2 companies which are to be excluded as functionally different based on the Tribunal s order in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd., we find that these companies are- 1) Accel Transmatic 2) Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd. 3) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ware product by name DXchange , it was submitted that this company would have revenue from software product sales apart from rendering of software services and therefore is functionally different from the assessee. It was further submitted that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal to the decision in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT - ITA No.7821/Mum/2011 wherein the Tribunal accepted the assessee s contention that this company has revenue from software product and observed that i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sence 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% whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat it was an extraordinary year for this company. Even the growth of software industry for the previous year as per NASSCOM was 32%. The growth rate of this company was double the industry average. In view of the above, it was argued that this company ought to have been rejected as a comparable. 41. We have given a careful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the Assessee and are of the view that the same deserves to be accepted. The reasons given by the Assessee for excluding thi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Report (page 20 of PB-Il), it is stated that the company has applied for Income Tax concession for in-house R&D centre expenditure at Hyderabad under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. ii. As per the Notes to Accounts - Schedule 15, under Deferred Revenue Expenditure (page 31 of PBII), it is mentioned that, Expenditure incurred on research and development of new products has been treated as deferred revenue expenditure and the same has been written off in 10 years equally yearly installm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f 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 disco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and purification under wet lab procedures are under progress with our collaborative Institute, Department of Microbiology, Osmania University, Hyderabad. In the industrial biotechnology area, the company has signed the Technology transfer agreement with IMTECH CHANDIGARH (a very reputed CSIR organization) to manufacture and market initially two Enzymes, Alpha Amylase and Alkaline Protease in India and overseas. The company is planning to set up a biotechnology facility to manufacture industrial .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sel for the Assessee, the discovery is in relation to a software discovery of new drugs. Moreover the company also is owner of the IPR. There is however a reference to development of a molecule to treat cancer using bio-informatics tools for which patenting process was also being pursued. As explained earlier it is a diversified company and therefore cannot be considered as comparable functionally with that of the Assessee. There has been no attempt made to identify and eliminate and make adjust .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

discovery of new drugs and has developed molecule to treat cancer. In the ultimate analysis, the ITAT did not consider this company as a comparable in clinical trial segment, for the reason that this company has diverse business. It was submitted that, however, from the above extracts it is clear that this company is not into software development activities, accordingly, this company should be rejected as a comparable being functionally different. 45. From the material available on record, it tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee 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 relate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

performed by the Assessee. Celestial labs had come out with a public issue of shares and in that connection issued Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) in which the business of this company was explained as to clinical research. The TPO wanted to know as to whether the primary business of this company is software development services as indicated in the annual report for FY 06-07 or clinical research and manufacture of bio products and other products as stated in the DRHP. There is no reference .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in clinical research and manufacture of bio products and other products, there is no clear basis on which the TPO concluded that this company was mainly in the business of providing software development services. We therefore accept the plea of the Assessee that this company ought not to have been considered as comparable. (d) KALS Information Systems Ltd. 46. As far as this company is concerned, the contention of the assessee is that the aforesaid company has revenues from both software develop .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 sai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Information Systems Limited should be rejected as a comparable. 47. We have given a careful consideration to the submission made on behalf of the Assessee. We find that the TPO has drawn conclusions on the basis of information obtained by issue of notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. This information which was not available in public domai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

el Transmatic Ltd. 48. With regard to this company, the complaint of the assessee is that this company is not a pure software development service company. It is further submitted that in a Mumbai Tribunal Decision of Capgemini India (F) Ltd v Ad. CIT 12 Taxman.com 51, the DRP accepted the contention of the assessee that Accel Transmatic should be rejected as comparable. The relevant observations of DRP as extracted by the ITAT in its order are as follows: In regard to Accel Transmatics Ltd. the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s)- training services in hardware and networking, enterprise system management, embedded system, VLSI designs, CAD/CAM/BPO (iv) Accel Animation Studies software services for 2D/3D animation, special effect, erection, game asset development. 4.3 On careful perusal of the business activities of Accel Transmatic Ltd. DRP agreed with the assessee that the company was functionally different from the assessee company as it was engaged in the services in the form of ACCEL IT and ACCEL animation service .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or 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 accep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

O to exclude the aforesaid companies from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP. 13. As far as comparable companies listed at Sl.No.11 & 14 of the final list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO viz., M/S.Ishir Infotech Ltd. And Lucid Software Ltd., is 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 c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 decisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as compared to the assessee, which is only into software services. Similarly, as regards Ishir Infotech Ltd., the Tribunal has considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Co. Pvt. Ltd to hold that Ishir Infotech is also out-sourcing its work and, therefore, has not satisfied the 15% employee cost filter and thus has to be excluded from the list of comparables. As the facts of the case before us are similar, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we hold tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) No.1086/Bang/2011 for AY 07-08 held that the aforesaid companies 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 Servic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessee submitted that there is an error 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) softw .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 products, customers may request the company to customize products or reconfigure products to fit into their business environment. Thereupon the company takes up the job of customizing the packaged software. The company also explained that 30 to 40% of the product software would .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fore held that less than 25% of the revenues of the comparable are from software products and therefore the comparable satisfied TPO s filter of more than 75% of revenues from software development services. The basis on which the TPO arrived at the PLI of 60.23% is given at page-115 and 116 of the order of the TPO. It is clear from the perusal of the same that the TPO has proceeded to determine the PLI at the entity level and not on the basis of segmental data. 25. In the order of the TPO, opera .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

95% and in case of software service segment it is 23.11%. Both the segments are substantially different and therefore comparison at entity level is without basis and would vitiate the comparability (submissions on page 381 to 383 of the PB-I). It was further submitted that Megasoft Limited has provided segmental break-up between the software services segment and software product segment (page 68 of PB-II), which was also adopted by the TPO in his show cause notice (Page 84 of PB-I). The segmenta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nly 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA No.1280/Bang/2012 for AY 08-09 order dated 31.7.2013 has held that the aforesaid companies are not comparable companies in the case of software development services provider. The following were the relevant observations in the case of M/S.Curam Software International Pvt.Ltd.(supra): 12. (4) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 12.1 This was a comparable selected by the TPO. Before the TPO, the assessee objected to the inclusion of the company in the set of comparables, on the grounds of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) Cell to guide its employees to leverage the power of IP for their growth. In 2008, this company generated over 102 invention disclosures and filed an aggregate 10 patents in India and the USA. Till date this company has filed an aggregate of 119 patent applications (pending) in India and USA out of which 2 have been granted in the US. (ii) This company has substantial revenues from software products and the break-up of the software product revenues is not available. (iii) This company has incu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t owns significant intangible and has huge revenues from software products. It is also seen that the break up of revenue from software services and software products is not available. In this view of the matter, we hold that this company ought to be omitted from the set of comparable companies. It is ordered accordingly. 13.0 (5) Wipro Limited 13.1 This company was selected as a comparable by the TPO. Before the TPO, the assessee had objected to the inclusion of this company in the list of compa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Annual Report of this company in the submissions made. (ii) The TPO had adopted the consolidated financial statements for comparability purposes and for computing the margins, which contradicts the TPO s own filter of rejecting companies with consolidated financial statements. 13.3. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the action of the TPO in including this company in the set of comparables. 13.4.1 We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the mate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

filter adopted by him. Another major flaw in the comparability analysis carried out by the TPO is that he adopted comparison of the consolidated financial statements of Wipro with the stand alone financials of the assessee; which is not an appropriate comparison. 13.4.2 We also find that this company owns intellectual property in the form of registered patents and several pending applications for grant of patents. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Custome .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

learned Authorised Representative pleaded that this company be excluded from the list of comparables. 14.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the stand o the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables. 14.4.1 We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. From the details on record, we find that this company is predominantly engaged in product designing services and not purely software development services. The det .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd reproduced below :- …. Tata Elxsi is engaged in development of niche product and development services which is entirely different from the assessee company. We agree with the contention of the learned Authorised Representative that the nature of product developed and services provided by this company are different from the assessee as have been narrated in para 6.6 above. Even the segmental details for revenue sales have not been provided by the TPO so as to consider it as a comparable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this company is not to be 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 the objections raised by the assessee on the ground that as per the information received in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act, this company is engaged in software development services and satisfies all the filters. 14.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative contende .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rised as knowledge process Outsourcing ( KPO ) services. It is further submitted that this company has not provided segmental data in its Annual Report. The learned Authorised Representative submits that since the Annual Report of the company does not contain detailed descriptive information on the business of the company, the assessee places reliance on the details available on the company s website which should be considered while evaluating the company s functional profile. It is also submitt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m the list of comparables. 14.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables by the TPO. 14.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefullyconsidered the material on record. It is seen from the record that the TPO has included this company in the list of comparbales only on the basis of the statement made by the company in its reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. It appears that the TPO has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 Solut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icenses for use of software. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that :- (i) This company is engaged in product development and earns revenue from sale of licences and subscription. It has been pointed out from the Annual Report that the company has not provided any separate segmental profit and loss account for software development services and product development services. (ii) In the case of E-Gain communications Pvt. Ltd. (2008-TII-04- ITAT-PUNE-TP), the Tribunal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

list of comparables. 15.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is seen from the material on record that the company is engaged in product development and earns revenue from sale of licenses and subscription. However, the segmental profit and loss accounts for software development services and product development are not given separately. Further, as pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation in the case on hand. 17. Persistent Systems Ltd. 17.1.1 This company was selected by the TPO as a comparable. The assessee 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 200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 development service provider as is the assessee in the case on hand. (ii) Page 60 of the Annual Report of the company for F.Y. 2007- 08 indicates that this company, is predominantly engaged in O .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

principle is squarely applicable to the company presently under consideration, which is into product development and product design services and for which the segmental data is not available. The learned Authorised Representative prays that in view of the above, this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd. be omitted from the list of comparables. 17.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative support the action of the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables. 17.3 We have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rdia Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that in the absence of segmental details / information a company cannot be taken into account for comparability analysis, we hold that this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd. ought to be omitted from the set of comparables for the year under consideration. It is ordered accordingly. 18. Quintegra Solutions Ltd. 18.1 This case was selected by the TPO as a comparable. Before the TPO, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company in the set of co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arned. 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 produ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

search and development activities which resulted in the creation of Intellectual Proprietary Rights (IPRs) as can be evidenced from the statements made in the Annual Report of the company for the period under consideration, which is as under : Quintegra has taken various measures to preserve its intellectual property. Accordingly, some of the products developed by the company …………… have been covered by the patent rights. The company has also applied for trade m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ys that in view of the submissions made above, it is clear that inter alia, this company i.e. Quintegra Solutions Ltd. being functionally different and possessing its own intangibles / IPRs, it cannot be considered as a comparable to the assessee in the case on hand and therefore ought to be excluded from the list of comparables for the period under consideration. 18.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the action of the TPO in including this company in the set of comp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

R&D activity which has resulted in creation of its IPRs. Having applied for trade mark registration of its products, it evidences the fact that this company owns intangible assets. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

om 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 aforesaid companies from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee is with regard to the inclusion of items at (9) and (11) namely Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., and KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg). The primary plea raised by the assessee to assail the inclusion of the aforesaid two companies from the list of comparables is to be effect that they are functionally incomparable and therefore, are liable to be excluded. In sum and substance, the plea set up by the assessee is that both the aforesaid concerns are engaged in d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly application software segment and Training. As per the TPO, the application software segment is functionally comparable to the assessee as the said concern is engaged in software services. The stand of the assessee is that a perusal of the Annual Report of the said concern for F.Y. 2006-07 reveals that the application software segment is engaged in the business of sale of software products and software services. The assessee pointed out this to the TPO in its written submissions, copy of which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lling 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 segm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s invited to page 454 where the accept reject matrix undertaken by the assessee reflected KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg) as functionally incomparable. The Ld. Counsel pointed out that the aforesaid position has been accepted by the TPO in the earlier A.Y. 2006-07 and therefore, there was no justification for the TPO to consider the said concern as functionally comparable in the instant assessment year. 19. In our considered opinion, the point raised by the assessee is potent in as much as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

egment. At the time of hearing, neither is there any argument put forth by the Revenue and nor is there any discussion emerging from the orders of the lower authorities as to in what manner the functional profile of the said concern has undergone a change from that in the immediately preceding year. Therefore, having regard to the factual aspects brought out by the assessee, it is correctly asserted that the application software segment of the said concern is not comparable to the assessee s seg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rn was found functionally incomparable by the assessee in its Transfer pricing study and the said position was not disturbed by the TPO. The relevant portion of the Transfer pricing study, placed at page 432 of the Paper book has been pointed out in support. Considered in the aforesaid light, on the basis of the discussion in relation to KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg), in the instant case also we find that the said concern is liable to be excluded from the list of comparables. 22. Respect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n ₹ 20 crores: (1) Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. 848.66 crores (2) iGate Global Solutions Ltd. 747.27 crores (3) Mindtree Ltd. 590.39 crores (4) Persistent Systems Ltd. 293.74 crores (5) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. 343.57 crores (6) Tata Elxsi Ltd. 262.58 crores (7) Wipro Ltd. 9616.09 crores (8) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 13149 crores 24. Our attention was drawn to the observations of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. (supra) (ITA No.1338/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

follows: 26. (1) Turnover Filter 11. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the TPO has applied a lower turnover filter of ₹ 1 crore, but has not chosen to apply any upper turnover limit. In this regard, it was submitted by him that under rule 10B(3) to the Income-tax Rules, it was necessary for comparing an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction that there should not be any difference between the transactions compared or the enterprises entering into such tran .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

panies would impact comparability. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 207, wherein the Special Bench had laid down that it is improper to proceed on the basis of lower limit of 1 crore turnover with no higher limit on turnover, as the same was not reasonable classification. Several other decisions were referred to in this regard laying down identical proposition. We are not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is aspect lay down in para 15.4 that a transaction entered into by a ₹ 1,000 crore company cannot be compared with the transaction entered into by a ₹ 10 crore company. The two most obvious reasons are the size of the two companies and the relative economies of scale under which they operate. The fact that they operate in the same market may not make them comparable enterprises. The relevant extract is as follows [on Rule 10B(3)]: Clause (i) lays down that if the differences are not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o infinity) has resulted in selection of companies like Infosys which is 277 times bigger than the Assessee (turnover of ₹ 13,149 crores as compared to ₹ 47.47 crores of Assessee). It was submitted that an appropriate turnover range should be applied in selecting comparable uncontrolled companies. 14. Reference was made to the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Genesis Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010, wherein relying on Dun and Br .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e unable to understand as to why there should not be an upper limit also. What should be upper limit is another factor to be considered. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the size matters in business. A big company would be in a position to bargain the price and also attract more customers. It would also have a broad base of skilled employees who are able to give better output. A small company may not have these benefits and therefore, the turnover also wo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the classification made by Dun & Bradstreet is more suitable and reasonable. In view of the same, we hold that the turnover filter is very important and the companies having a turnover of ₹ 1.00 crore to 200 crores have to be taken as a particular range and the assessee being in that range having turnover of 8.15 crores, the companies which also have turnover of 1.00 to 200.00 crores only should be taken into consideration for the purpose of making TP study. 15. It was brought to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he ld. DR, on the other hand pointed out that even the assessee in its own TP study has taken companies having turnover of more than ₹ 200 crores as comparables. In these circumstances, it was submitted by him that the assessee cannot have any grievance in this regard. 17. We have considered the rival submissions. The provisions of the Act and the Rules that are relevant for deciding the issue have to be first seen. Sec.92. of the Act provides that any income arising from an international .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to any one or more of such enterprises. Sec.92- A defines what is an Associated Enterprise. In the present case there is no dispute that the transaction between the Assessee and its AE was an international transaction attracting the provisions of Sec.92 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

comparable uncontrolled price method; (b) resale price method; (c) cost plus method; (d) profit split method; (e) transactional net margin method; (f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board. (2) The most appropriate method referred to in subsection (1) shall be applied, for determination of arm s length price, in the manner as may be prescribed: Provided that where more than one price is determined by the most appropriate method, the arm s length price shall be taken to be the arit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on or document in his possession, of the opinion that- (a) the price charged or paid in an international transaction has not been determined in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2); or (b) any information and document relating to an international transaction have not been kept and maintained by the assessee in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 92D and the rules made in this behalf; or (c) the information or data used in computation of the arm s length pri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cribes rules for Determination of arm s length price under section 92C:- 10B. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 92C, the arm s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :- (a)……. to (d)…….. (e) transactional net margin method, by which,- (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lled transactions is adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market; (iv) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise and referred to in sub-clause (i) is established to be the same as the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause (iii); (v) the net profit mar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the risks assumed, by the respective parties to the transactions; (c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how the responsibilities, risks and benefits are to be divided between the respective parties to the transactions; (d) conditions prevailing in the markets in which the respective parties to the transactions operate, including the geographical location and size of the markets, the laws and Gove .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ransactions in the open market; or (ii) reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences. (4) The data to be used in analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction shall be the data relating to the financial year in which the international transaction has been entered into : Provided that data relating to a period not being more than two years prior to such financial year may also be considered if such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

omparability of the comparable relied upon by the TPO. 20. In this regard we find that the provisions of law pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee as well as the decisions referred to by the ld. counsel for the assessee clearly lay down the principle that the turnover filter is an important criteria in choosing the comparables. The assessee s turnover is ₹ 47,46,66,638. It would therefore fall within the category of companies in the range of turnover between 1 crore and 200 crore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Global Solutions Ltd. 747.27 crores (3) Mindtree Ltd. 590.39 crores (4) Persistent Systems Ltd. 293.74 crores (5) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. 343.57 crores (6) Tata Elxsi Ltd. 262.58 crores (7) Wipro Ltd. 961.09 crores. (8) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 13149 crores. 27. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. (supra), we hold that the aforesaid companies should be excluded from the list of comparable compan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssues raised in the concise grounds of appeal No.1 to 6 and therefore the issue with regard to determination of ALP of the international transaction of providing software development services to the AE by the Assessee is decided as set out in the earlier paragraphs. 30. Concise Ground No.7 & 8 raised by the Assessee project the grievance of the Assessee regarding the action of the learned Assessing Officer and Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel in excluding while computing deduction u/s.10A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version