New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 64 - ITAT BANGALORE

2015 (11) TMI 64 - ITAT BANGALORE - TMI - Transfer pricing adjustment - Computation of Arms Length Price - Held that:- E-Zest Solutions Ltd. to be excluded from the list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO as KPO services are not comparable to software development services and are therefore not comparable.

Infosys Technologies Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd. and Wipro Ltd. held to be functionally not comparable with a software development service provider such as the Assessee in the case .....

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 arithmetic mean of the remaining comparable companies and allow adjustment of + / - 5% of the net margin as contemplated by the provisions of Sec.92C of the Act, if the Assessee is entitled to such adjustment as a result of exclusion of the comparable companies. - IT(TP)A No.1223/Bang/2013, IT(TP)A Nos.1106/Bang/2013 - Dated:- 30-9-2015 - SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I(DR) For The Assessee : Shri T. S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(AE) u/s.92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The addition made consequent to determination of ALP by the TPO and addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment was a sum of ₹ 7,20,13,370 which was substantially reduced by the CIT(A) in the appeal filed by the assessee. To the extent the transfer pricing adjustment survives pursuant to the impugned order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the relie .....

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 support of the assessee s claim that the price charged by it for services rendered to its AE was at arms length, the assessee filed a report as required by the provisions of section 92E of the Act in Form 3EB together with detailed analysis. The assessee adopted Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP. Operating profits to cost was adopted as the Profit Level Indicator ( PLI ). The PLI of the assessee was arrived at as follows: Operating Reve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Gate Global Solution ltd. 13.99 7 Infosys 40.37 8 Kals Information Systems Ltd. (Seg.) 41.94 9 LGS Global Ltd. 27.52 10 Mindtree Ltd. (Seg) 16.41 11 Persistent Systems Ltd. 20.31 12 Quintegra Solution Ltd. 21.74 13 R Systems International (Seg) 5.30 14 R S Software (India) Ltd. 7.41 15 Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. (Seg) 7.58 16 Tala Elxsi (Seg) 18.97 17 Thirdware Solution Ltd. 19.35 18 Wipro Ltd. (Seg) 28.45 19 Softsol India Ltd. 17.89 20 Lucid Software Ltd. 16.50 Arithmetic Mean 23.65 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

operating cost Arms Length Price (ALP) At 120.09% of operating cost Rs.89,98,34,370 Price charged in the international transactions Rs.82,78,21,000 Shortfall being adjustment u/s.92CA Rs.7,20,13,370 The above shortfall of ₹ 7,20,13,370/- is treated as transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA in respect of the software development segment of the taxpayer s international transaction. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

following companies alone were retained for the purpose of determining the profit margin (arithmetic mean):- Sl. No Name of company OP on Cost as per OGE to CIT(A) order Adjusted Margin 1 Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. 19.14% 20.15% 2 e-zest Solutions Ltd. 28.97% 29.22% 3 LGS Global Ltd. 26.66% 25.93% 4 Quintegra Solution Ltd. 23.06% 20.35% 5 R S Software (India) Ltd. 6.46% 7.73% 6 R Systems International Ltd. (Seg.) 16.87% 15.02% 7 Thirdware Solution Ltd. 21.92% 20.11% 8 Softsol India Ltd. 15.16% 13 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ht not to have been held to be functionally dissimilar even apart from the fact that they had turnover > ₹ 200 crores. 10. The grounds in the Revenue s appeals are as follows:- (i) The CIT(A) erred in rejecting eight companies on application of turnover filter. (ii) The CIT(A) erred in excluding Celestial Biolabs Ltd. on the basis of high profit margin. (iii) The CIT(A) erred in rejecting :- Diminishing revenue filter - Different year ending filter - Employee cost filter (iv) The CIT(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

ompanies chosen by the TPO and excluded by the CIT(Appeals). 12. As far as Assessee s appeal is concerned, the first grievance is regarding the action of the CIT(A) in not excluding E-Zest Solutions Ltd. The learned counsel for the Assessee pointed out that this tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 333 (Bang.) (ITAT) was pleased to exclude the aforesaid company (For AY 08-09) as a comparable company in software development services segment. The fol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

development services and satisfies all the filters. 14.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative contended that this company ought to be excluded from the list of comparables on the ground that it is functionally different to the assessee. It is submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that this company is engaged in e-Business Consulting Services , consisting of Web Strategy Services, I T design services and in Technology Consulting Services including product development cons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

company s website which should be considered while evaluating the company s functional profile. It is also submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that KPO services are not comparable to software development services and therefore companies rendering KPO services ought not to be considered as comparable to software development companies and relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Capital IQ Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. in ITA No.1961(Hyd)/2011 dt.23.11.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tement made by the company in its reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. It appears that the TPO has not examined the services rendered by the company to give a finding whether the services performed by this company are similar to the software development services performed by the assessee. From the details on record, we find that while the assessee is into software development services, this company i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd., is rendering product development services and high end .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the period under consideration in the case on hand. The A.O. / TPO is accordingly directed. 13. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid company from the list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO. 14. As far as the next grievance of the Assessee is concerned, the plea is that Infosys Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., and Wipro Ltd., have been excluded by the CIT(A) from the list of comparable companies based on the fact that thei .....

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 find that these three companies have been held to be functionally not comparable with a software development service provider such as the Assessee in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. (supra). The following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal: 11.0 Infosys Technologies Ltd. 11.1 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 turnover and brand attributable profit 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

nd value, owns intellectual property rights and is a market leader in software development activities, whereas the assessee is merely a software service provider operating its business in India and does not possess either any brand value or own any intangible or intellectual property rights (IPRs). It was also submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that :- (i) the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.227/Bang/2010 has held that a 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

5.2 thereof, that Infosys Technologies Ltd. being a giant company and market leader assuming all risks leading to higher profits cannot be considered as comparable to captive service providers assuming limited risk ; (iii) the company has generated several inventions and filed for many patents in India and USA ; (iv) the company has substantial revenues from software products and the break up of such revenues is not available ; (v) the company has incurred huge expenditure for research and deve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

merely on the basis of scale of operations and the brand attributable profit 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. 11.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidence to establish that this company is functionally .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rvices 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. Tata Elxsi Ltd. 13.1 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 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

mitted that, (i) The co-ordinate bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Telecordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that Tata Elxsi Ltd. is not a functionally comparable for a software development service provider. (ii) The facts pertaining to Tata Elxsi Ltd. have not changed from the earlier year i.e. Assessment Year 2007-08 to the period under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2008-09 and therefore this company cannot be considered as a comparable to the assessee in the case on ha .....

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 a portfolio of reusable software components, ready to deploy frameworks, licensable IPs and products. The learned Authorised Representative pleads that in view of the above reasons, Tata Elxsi Ltd. is clearly functionally different / dis-similar from the assessee and therefore ought to be omitted form the list of comparables. 13.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the stand of the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables. 13.4 We have heard both part .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

V ACIT (ITA No.7821/Mum/2011) has held that Tata Elxsi Ltd. is not a software development service provider and therefore it is not functionally comparable. In this context the relevant portion of this order is extracted and 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 s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

can be seen from the extracts of the Annual Report of this company produced before us, the facts pertaining to Tata Elxsi have not changed from Assessment Year 2007-08 to Assessment Year 2008-09. We, therefore, hold that this company is not to be considered for inclusion in the set of comparables in the case on hand. It is ordered accordingly. Wipro Ltd.: As far as this company is concerned, this Tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. (supra) held that this company is not compara .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

earned Authorised Representative of the assessee contended that this company i.e. Wipro Ltd., is not functionally comparable to the assessee for the following reasons:- (i) This company owns significant intangibles in the nature of customer related intangibles and technology related intangibles, owns IPRs and has been granted 40 registered patents and has 62 pending applications and its Annual Report confirms that it owns patents and intangibles. (ii) the ITAT, Delhi observation in the case of 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

(iv) this company has acquired new companies pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation in the last two years. (v) Wipro Ltd. is engaged in both software development and product development services. No information is available on the segmental bifurcation of revenue from sale of products and software services. (vi) the TPO has adopted consolidated financial statements for comparability purposes and for computing the margins, which is in contradiction to the TPO s own filter of rejecting companies wi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ormation on the segmental bifurcation of revenue from sale of product and software services. The TPO appears to have adopted this company as a comparable without demonstrating how the company satisfies the software development sales 75% of the total revenue 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 ap .....

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 assessee in the case on hand does not own any intangibles, following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e. 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that this company cannot be considered as a comparable to the assessee. 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. 16. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we direct that the aforesaid th .....

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 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. 961.09 crores. (8) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 13149 crores 18. The Bangalore Bench of ITAT has been consistently following the decision rendered in the case of Trilogy e-business Software India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No.1054/Bang/2011 dated 23.11 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot 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 transaction, which are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid or profit arising from such transaction in the open market. Further it is als .....

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 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 referring to those decisions as the decision of the Special Bench on this aspect would hold the field. Reference was also made to the OECD TP Guidelines, 201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

377; 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 material, the transactions would be comparable. These differences could either be with reference to the transaction or with reference to the enterprise. For 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

₹ 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 Bradstreet s analysis, the turnover of ₹ 1 crore to ₹ 200 crores was held to be proper. The following relevant observations were brought to our noti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tention 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 would come down reducing profit margin. Thus, as held by the various benches of the Tribunal, when companies which arc loss making are excluded from comparables .....

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 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 our notice that the above proposition has also been followed by the Honourable Bangalore ITAT in the following cases: 1. M/s Kodiak Networks (India) Private .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

parables. 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 transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm s length price. Sec.92-B provides that international transaction means a transaction between two or mor .....

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 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 of the Act. Sec.92C provides the manner of computation of Arm s length price in an international transaction and it provides:- (1) that the arm s length price .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther 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 arithmetical mean of such prices: Provided further that if the variation between the arm s length price so determined and price at which the 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

h 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 price is not reliable or correct; or (d) the assessee has failed to furnish, within the specified time, any information or document which he was required to furn .....

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 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 transaction entered into with an associated enterprise is computed in relation to costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed or to be employed by the enterp .....

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 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 margin thus established is then taken into account to arrive at an arm s length price in relation to the international transaction. (2) For the purposes of sub-r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctions 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 Government orders in force, costs of labour and capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 data reveals facts which could have an influence on the determination of transfer prices in relation to the transactions being compared. 19. A reading of 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 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 crores (as laid down in the case of Genesis Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010) . Thus, companies having turnover of more than 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.57 crores (6) Tata Elxsi Ltd. 262.58 crores (7) Wipro Ltd. 961.09 crores. (8) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 13149 crores. 19. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) excluding the aforesaid companies from the list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO. 20. The next grievance of the revenue projected in ground no.3 of its appeal is exclusion of Celestial Biolabs Ltd., as a comparable company by the CIT(A). On this issue this tribunal has already taken a v .....

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 form the assessee and that it fails the employee cost filter. The TPO, however, brushed aside the objections raised by the assessee by stating that the objections of functional dissimilarity has been dealt with in detail in the T.P. order for Assessment Year 2007- 08. As regards the objection raised in respect of the employee cost filter issue, the TPO rejected the objections by observing that the employee cost filter is only a trigger to know the functionality of the company. 9.2 Bef .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

providers by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2007-08 (supra); (iii) The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in its order in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) at para 43 thereof had observed about this company that - ….. As explained earlier, it is a diversified company and therefore cannot be considered as comparable functionally with the assessee. There has been no attempt to identify, eli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ses of LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.112/Bang/2011, CSR India Pvt. Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.1119/Bang/2011 and by the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Transwitch India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6083/Del/2010. (v) The facts pertaining to this company has not changed from Assessment Year 2007-08 to Assessment Year 2008-09 and therefore this company cannot be considered for the purpose of comparability in the instant case and hence ought to be rejected. In support of this contention, the assessee has also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4.1 We have heard both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record. While it is true that the decisions cited and relied on by the assessee were with respect to the immediately previous assessment year, and there cannot be an assumption that it would continue to be applicable for this year as well, the same parity of reasoning is applicable to the TPO as well who seems to have selected this company as a comparable based on the reasoning given in the TPO s order for th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evidence to establish that this company is functionally dissimilar and different from the assessee in the case on hand and is therefore not comparable and also that the findings rendered in the cited decisions for the earlier years i.e. Assessment Year 2007-08 is applicable for this year also. We agree with the submissions of the assessee that this company is functionally different from the assessee. It has also been so held by coordinate benches of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for 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

ITA No.1054/Bang/2011, we hold that this company ought to be omitted form the list of comparables. The A.O./TPO are accordingly directed. 21. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) excluding the aforesaid companies from the list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO. 22. Grounds No.4 to 6 raised by the revenue do not arise for consideration at all because the CIT(A) did not exclude any of the comparable chosen by the TPO by applying any of the criter .....

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 was considered in several decisions of the ITAT. These have been listed in the chart filed by the assessee before us. We, however, find that making a reference to all those decisions will not be of any help and making a reference to one such decision would be sufficient. In the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. v. DCIT, IT(TP)A No.1303/Bang/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09, order dated 28.11.2013, this Tribunal has held as under on choosing this company as a comparable:- 7.0 Avani Cincom Technologies .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ected this company as a comparable. For this purpose, the TPO had relied on information submitted by this company in response to enquiries carried out under section 133(6) of the Act for collecting information about the company directly. 7.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative reiterated the assessee s objections for the inclusion of this company from the list of comparable companies on the ground that this company is not functionally comparable to the assessee as it is into softwar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

udicial decisions : i) Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. V DCIT (ITA No.1054/Bang/2011) ii) Telecordia Technologies India Pvt Ltd V ACIT (ITA No.7821/Mum/2011) It was also submitted that this company has been held to be functionally not comparable to the assessee by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2007-08 in ITA No.845/Bang/2011 dt.22.2.2013. 7.3 The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the facts pertaining to this .....

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 and sells customizable software solutions like DX Change, CARMA, etc. 7.4 The learned Authorised Representative submitted that a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in its order in Curram Software International Pvt. Ltd., in its order in ITA No.1280/Bang/2012 dt.31.7.2013 has remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer / TPO to examine the comparability of this company afresh, by making the following observations at paras 9.5.2 and 9.5.3 thereof :- 9.5.2 As regards the submissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot suffice for the following reasons :- (i) The assessee needs to demonstrate that the FAR analysis and other relevant facts of the Trilogy case are equally applicable to the facts of the assessee s case also. Unless the facts and the FAR analysis of Trilogy case is comparable to that of the assessee in the case on hand, comparison between the two is not tenable. (ii) After demonstrating the similarity and the comparability between the assessee and the Trilogy case, the assessee also needs to de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ticular year cannot be extrapolated automatically and made applicable to subsequent years. To do that, it is necessary to first establish that the facts and attendant factors have remained the same so that the factors of comparability are the same. Viewed in that context, the assessee has not discharged the onus upon it to establish that the decision rendered in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) can be applied to the facts of the case and that too of an earlier year .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

considering the above observations. The TPO is directed to make available to the assessee information obtained under section 133(6) of the Act and to afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make its submissions in the matter, which shall be duly considered before passing orders thereon. It is ordered accordingly. The learned Authorised Representative submits that this company was selected as a comparable by the TPO not by any FAR analysis or as per the search process cond .....

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 as a comparable violates the principle enunciated in Curram Software International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that a company can be selected as a comparable only on the basis of FAR analysis conducted for that year and therefore pleaded for its exclusion. The learned Authorised Representative also submitted that he has brought on record sufficient evidence to show that the functional profile of this company remains unchanged from the earlier year and hence the findings rendered by the co-ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cord. It is seen from the record that the TPO has included this company in the final set of comparables only on the basis of information obtained under section 133(6) of the Act. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the TPO to have necessarily furnished the information so gathered to the assessee and taken its submissions thereon into consideration before deciding to include this company in its final list of comparables. Non-furnishing the information obtained under section 133(6) of the 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

der section 133(6) of the Act. Apart from placing reliance on the judicial decision cited above, including the assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessee has brought on record evidence that this company is functionally dis-similar and different from the assessee and hence is not comparable. Therefore the finding excluding it from the list of comparables rendered in the immediately preceding year is applicable in this year also. Since the functional profile and other parameters .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ms Ltd. 10.1 This is 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 grounds of functional differences and that the segmental details have not been provided in the Annual Report of the company with respect to software services revenue and software products revenue. The TPO, however, rejected the objections of the assessee observing that the software products and training constitutes only 4.24% of total reve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see as it is into software products. (ii) This company has been held to be functionally not comparable to software service providers for Assessment Year 2007-08 by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case. This company has been held to be different from a software development company in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bindview India Pvt. Ltd. V DCIT in ITA No.1386/PN/2010. (iii) The rejection of this company as a comparable has been upheld by co-ordinate benc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xcluded from the list of comparables. In support of this contention, the learned Authorised Representative drew our attention to various parts of the Annual Report of this company. (v) This company is engaged not only in the development of software products but also in the provision of training services as can be seen from the website and the Annual Report of the company for the year ended 31.3.2008. (vi) This company has two segments; namely, a) Application Software Segment which includes 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

Y. 2008-09. To this, the counter argument of the learned Authorised Representative is that the functional profile of this company continues to remain the same for the year under consideration also and the same is evident from the details culled out from the Annual Report and quoted above (supra). 10.4 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find from the record that the TPO has drawn conclusions as to the comparability of this company to the ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version