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 →

ADP Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1) , Hyderabad

2016 (7) TMI 660 - ITAT HYDERABAD

Inclusion of reimbursable cost as operating cost by TPO - Held that:- Exclusion of reimbursement cost from the operating cost for determining the ALP confirmed. - Deduction u/s. 10A computation - Held that:- We direct the AO to re-compute the reduction u/s. 10A after reducing the communication charges both from the export turnover as well as total turnover - Reduction of foreign exchange gain from business profits while computing deduction u/s. 10A - Held that:- We are considered that 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

rbed depreciation, business loss relating to non- STPI business - Held that:- Even on the principles of law, the issue was decided in favaour of assessee in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in [2011 (8) TMI 845 - Karnataka High Court ], wherein it was held that exemption u/s. 10A has to be allowed without setting of brought forward unabsorbed losses and depreciation from earlier assessment year, in the case of non-STP units. Applying the pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Income Tax Act [Act] consequent to the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP], Hyderabad U/s 144C of the Act. Assessee has raised as many as 17 grounds in the concise/modified grounds filed before the Tribunal. Ground Nos. 1 to 12 pertains to Transfer Pricing issues. Ground No. 13 to 15 pertains to corporate issues. Ground No. 16 pertains to interest u/s. 234B and 234C, whereas Ground No. 17 is little premature for considerat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

derabad u/s. 92CA of the Act. The TPO passed order u/s. 92CA(3) on 31-08-2010. After the above order by TPO, AO issued draft assessment order on 15-12-2010. Assessee filed objections before the DRP and the DRP vide its order dt. 09-08-2011, gave directions u/s. 144C(5) of the Act. Consequent to AO passed order on 25-08-2011, which is the subject matter of present appeal. Transfer Pricing matters: 3. Even though assessee was engaged in software development as well as IT enabled services up to AY. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a set of 43 comparables with weighted average margin of 13.12% on operating cost. The TPO has undertaken fresh search and has selected 26 comparables in his study and arrived at arithmetic mean PLI at 25.14%. Since he has worked out a working capital adjustment of 2.30%, adjusted arithmetic mean was arrived at 22.84%. Treating this as margin for the purpose of determining Arm s Length Price (ALP) on operating cost, the TPO proposed TP adjustment of ₹ 20,09,31,663/- in his order. Consequen .....

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 11 have accordingly became academic in nature. Ground No. 7 is with reference to inclusion of Eleven comparable companies whereas Ground No. 8 pertains to Seven companies which assessee want to include them, which were not accepted by the TPO. 5. The companies which are not objected to by assessee are as under: Sl. No. Name of the Company TPO/DRP Order (WC adjusted) 1. Datamatics Ltd -1.00% 2. E-Zest Solutions Ltd 35.77% 3. Geometric Ltd (Seg) 9.26% 4. Igate Global Solutions Ltd 5.25% 5. Lan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are as under: Sl. No. Name of the Company TPO/DRP Order (WC adjusted) 15. Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd 50.93% 16. Infosys Technologies Ltd 38.69% 17. Ishir Infotech Ltd 30.11% 18. Lucid Software Ltd 16.71% 19. Mega Soft Ltd 51.07% 20. Tata Elxsi Ltd (Seg) 25.86% 21. Wipro Ltd (Seg) 34.20% 22. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (Seg) 24.73% 23. Helios & Matheson Information Tech Ltd 34.14% 24. Accel Transmatics Ltd 19.79% 25. KALS Information Systems Ltd Comparables to be included but rejecte .....

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 M/s. United Online Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1658/Hyd/2011 dt. 24-09-2015 and also other decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches in the case of Sumtotal Systems India P. Ltd., Invensys Development Centre India Private Limited etc. 8. The DRP itself vide para-II in page 2 of the order stated that the case of assessee was heard along with Invensys Development Centre India Private Limited, Adaptec India Pvt. Ltd., Sumtotal Systems India Pvt. Ltd., and United Online Software .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase of M/s. United Online Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1658/Hyd/2011 is given as under: 16. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record, including the paperbooks and detailed filed by Assessee. It has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for Assessee, and not disputed by the Learned Departmental Representative, that in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2006-07, the issue relating to comparable nature .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l as additional grounds taken together), viz. other than Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. (Seg.) and Helios & Matheson Information Tech. Ltd. has come up for consideration before this Tribunal for assessment year 2007-08 itself, in the case of Sumtotal Systems India P. Ltd., Hyderabad in ITA No.1710/Hyd/2011, wherein the Tribunal vide its order dated 9.5.2014 has accepted the contentions for exclusion of these nine companies under consideration before it. Relevant portion of the said order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bles. It is very much evident from the TP order that Assessee has been categorised as a software development service provider. Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Virtusa (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1962/Hyd/2011 dated 30/08/2013) after following some other decisions of the Tribunal has held this company cannot be treated as comparable as this company is also into product development. As segmental details of operating income of software development services and sale of 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

Ltd. ITA.1978/H2011 c) Intoto Software India P. Ltd. ITA.2102/H/2010 d) Telcordia Technologies India P. Ltd. ITA.7821/Mum/2011 e) Triology E-Business Solutions ITA.No.1054/Bang /2011 f) Bearing Point Business ITA.No.1124/Bang/2011 g) LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd. ITA.No.1121/Bang/2011 h) Transwitch India P. Ltd. ITA.No.948/Bang/2011 i) Mercedes Benz Research & Development ITA.No.1222/Bang/2011 j) CSR India P. Ltd. ITA.No.1119/Bang/2011 k) First Advantage ITA.No.1086/Bang/2012 l) HCL EAI Services L .....

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 their products and services due to the goodwill, reputation and brand value. It was submitted that due to scale of operation it not only enjoy economies of scale in the lower cost of infrastructure facilities and employees but also earning profit. It was submitted that the company has diversified activities including products, consultancy and solutions. Company own intangibles and assume considerable risk which results in earning higher profits. In support of such contention the ld. AR relied .....

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. 7.2.2. In rejoinder, the ld. AR submitted that Assessee selected Infosys on the basis of three years data, whereas TPO has considered only current year data. The learned AR further submitted that if Assessee has mistakenly selected a comparable, it cannot be estopped from objecting to the selection of that comparable in proceedings before higher forum. In this context, the learned AR relied upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Special Bench decision in case of Quark Systems, 4 ITR (Trib) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 42 crores of Assessee. Though it is a fact that Assessee in the TP documentation, has selected Infosys Technologies Ltd. as comparable but that cannot prevent Assessee from objecting to the aforesaid company being selected as comparable, if there are valid reasons for doing so. In this context, the contention of the learned AR that Assessee has selected Infosys Limited on the basis of three years financial data, whereas the TPO considered only the current year data also needs to be appreciate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

td. ITA.1978/H2011 c) M/s. Virtusa (I) P. Ltd. ITA.No.1962/Hyd/2011 d) Telcordia Technologies India P. Ltd. ITA.7821/Mum/2011 e) Triology E-Business Solutions ITA.No.1054/Bang/2011 f) Adaptec (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA.No.1801/Hyd/2009 g) Trinity Advanced Software Labs P. Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA.No.1129/Hyd/2005 We therefore direct the Assessing Officer /TPO to exclude this while computing ALP. ISHIR INFOTECH LTD 7.3. So far as this company is concerned, Assessee has sought exclusion of the aforesai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

RPT filter. This view of ours is also in tune with the view expressed by different Benches of this Tribunal as stated below : a) M/s. Foursoft Limited (ITA.No.1903/H/2011) b) Intoto Software India P. Ltd. ITA.2102/H/2010 c) LG Soft India P. Ltd. ITA.1121/Bang/2011 d) Transwitch India P. Ltd. ITA.948/Bang/2011 f) Mercedes Benz Research & Development ITA.No.1222/Bang/2011 g) CSR India P. Ltd. ITA.No.1119/Bang/2011 h) First Advantage ITA.No.1086/Bang/2012 i) HCL EAI Services Ltd. ITA.No.1348/B .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case M/s Virtusa (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). On perusal of the order passed in case of M/s Virtusa (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is seen that the co-ordinate bench has excluded the aforesaid company accepting assessee s contention that segmental data in respect of sale of products and software services are not available. Further following cases also considered the above company and excluded the same on same reason. a) M/s. Foursoft Limited (ITA.No.1903/H/2011) b) Intoto Software India P. Ltd. 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

OFT LIMITED : 7.5. The main objection of Assessee with regard to the aforesaid company is that this is predominantly a product development company and margin from software development services is 23.11%. As can be seen, in case of M/s Virtusa (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while considering Assessee s objection with regard to the aforesaid company had directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to take only segmental margin of this company for computing ALP. Similar view .....

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.1222/Bang/2011 j) CSR India P. Ltd. ITA.No.1119/Bang/2011 k) First Advantage ITA.No.1086/Bang/2012 l) HCL EAI Services Ltd. ITA.No.1348/Bang/2011. Respectfully following the aforesaid orders of co-ordinate benches, we direct the Assessing Officer /TPO to consider only the segmental margin of this company for the relevant assessment year for computing ALP. TATA ELXSI LIMITED : 7.6. Assessee has sought exclusion of the aforesaid company by placing reliance upon the information furnished by 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

e ITAT and the aforesaid company was rejected as comparable to the software services provider. For such contention, the learned AR relied upon the following decisions: a) Telcordia Technologies India P. Ltd. ITA.No.7821/Mum/2011 b) Triology E Business Solutions, ITA No. 1054/Bang/2011. c) M/s. Foursoft Limited (ITA.No.1903/H/2011) d) M/s. Virtusa (I) P. Ltd. ITA.No.1962/Hyd/2011 e) M/s. Conexant System India P. Ltd. ITA.No.1978/Hyd/2011. 7.6.1. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the or .....

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 Tata Elxsi is engaged in development of niche product and development services, which is entirely different from Assessee company. We agree with the contention of the learned AR that the nature of product developed and services provided by this company are different from 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 party for comparing the prof it ratio from product and ser .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

clusion of the aforesaid company from the list of comparables while determining ALP. WIPRO LIMITED : 7.7. While objecting to the aforesaid company being treated as comparable, the learned AR submitted that the TPO only on considering segmental details submitted by the said company for IT services, in response to notice issued u/s 133(6), has considered it as a comparable. It was submitted that the aforesaid company is a diversified company and discloses segmental information for IT services and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lowing decisions : a) Telcordia Technologies India P. Ltd. ITA.No.7821/Mum/2011 b) Triniti Advances Software P. Ltd., ITA No. 1129/H/2005. c) M/s. Foursoft Limited (ITA.No.1903/H/2011) d) M/s. Virtusa (I) P. Ltd. ITA.No.1962/Hyd/2011 e) M/s. Conexant System India P. Ltd. ITA.No.1978/Hyd/2011. f) Adaptec (I) P. L.td. ITA.No.1801/Hyd/2011. 7.7.1. The learned DR on the other hand supported the orders of the DRP as well as TPO so far as the selection of the aforesaid company as comparable while dete .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion for comparability analysis. Moreover, 67% of its sales relates to its product which are sold on premium resulting into higher prof itability, therefore, cannot be compared with Assessee company at all. There are several judgments of ITAT which have been referred in para 6.5 above, that Wipro cannot be taken as comparable case for comparable case with the company like assessee. In view of these facts and the reasoning given in the case of Infosys, we hold that Wipro also cannot be considered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. And other coordinate bench decisions, we hold that Wipro Ltd. cannot be treated as comparable with Assessee. ACCEL TRANSMATIC LTD. : 7.8. With regard to this company, the complaint of 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 Assessee that Accel Transmatic should be rejected 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

embedded software, net work system, imaging technologies, outsourced product development. (iii) Accel IT Academy (the net stop for engineers)- 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. 7.8.1. On careful perusal of the business activities of Accel Transmatic Ltd. DRP agreed with Assessee that the company .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/2011. b) Intoto Software India P. Ltd. ITA.2102/H/2010 c) Bearing Point Business ITA.No.1124/Bang/2011 d) LG Soft India P. Ltd. ITA.1121/Bang/2011 e) Transwitch India P. Ltd. ITA.948/Bang/2011 f) Mercedes Benz Research & Development ITA.No.1222/Bang/2011 g) CSR India P. Ltd. ITA.No.1119/Bang/2011 h) HCL EAI Services Ltd. ITA.No.1348/Bang/2011. Respectfully following the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, we direct that this company should be excluded from 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

d has directed that the company should be excluded from the list of comparables. Similarly, the Tribunal at Bangalore in the case of M/s. HCL EAI Services Ltd. vs. DCIT IT(TP) A. No. 1348/ Bang/2011 at para 17 at pages 24 to 26 of its order has discussed at length the reasons for not considering the said company as comparable to software development services company. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder : (d) KALS Information Systems Ltd. 46. As far as this company is concer .....

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 made to the Pune Bench Tribunal s decision of the ITAT in the case of Bindview India Private Limited Vs. 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. Assessee has objected to its inclusion on the basis that functionally the 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

l these aspects have not been factually rebutted and, in our view, the said concern is liable to be 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 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 Assessee. We find that the TPO has drawn conclusions on the basis of information obtained by issu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

refore accept the plea of Assessee that this company is not comparable . 7.9.1. We find that both M/s. HCL EAI Services Ltd. ITA.No.1348/Bang/2011 as well as M/s. Trilogy E-Business Solutions ITA.No.1054/Bang/2011 are into software development services to its parent companies. Assessee is also into similar type of activity. Therefore, the decision taken in M/s. Trilogy E-Business Software India Private Limited as well as M/s. HCL EAI Services Ltd. to exclude Kals Information Systems Ltd. applies .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the decision of the Coordinate Benches (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude the company from the list of comparables. 18. Similarly, as contended by the learned counsel for Assessee comparable nature of Flextronics Software Systems Ltd.(Seg) and Helio & Matheson Information Tech Ltd., has been rejected by coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Axsys Heathcare Ltd. vide order dated 28.5.2014 in ITA No.2076/Hyd/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08, for 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

and has incurred R & D expenditure for development of the products. The above facts clearly demonstrate that there is functional dissimilarity between Assessee and these companies and without making adjustment for the dissimilarities brought out by the TPO himself, these companies cannot be taken as comparable companies. The method adopted by the TPO to allocate expenditure proportionately to the software development services and software product activity cannot be said to be correct and rea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.36%. Thus it fails the employee cost filter. Therefore, not comparable. Assessee relied on the judgment of Mentor Graphics P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 109 ITD 101 (Del.) with reference to this comparable. 15. After considering the contentions, we are of the opinion that these 14 comparables are required to be excluded by the TPO. Respectfully following the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, we direct that these companies should be excluded from the list of comparables as assessee turnove .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

p for consideration, such as- (a) M/s. Axsys Healthcare Ltd. (ITA No.2076/Hyd/2011) (b) M/s.Virtusa (I) P. Ltd. (ITA No.1962/Hyd/2011) (c) M/s. Contexant System India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos.1978/Hyd/2011) (d) Intoto Software India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.2102/Hyd/2010) (e) TriologyE Business Solutions (ITA No.1054/Bang/2011) (f) Telcordia Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.7821/Mum/2011) (g) LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1121/Bang/2011) (h) Transwitch India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.948/Bang/2011) (i) Mercede .....

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. 1710/Hyd/2011 which was in turn relied on by the above said case by the Co-ordinate Bench, we allow Ground No. 7 of assessee and direct the AO to exclude 10 companies from the scope of comparable analysis. As far as Mega Soft Ltd., is concerned, the TPO is directed to consider only the segmental margin of this company for the relevant assessment year for computing the ALP. On these directions, the ground is considered partly allowed. 11. The next effective grievance of assessee that sur .....

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 exclude the same from consideration. 12. We find that the issue of these companies whether they are comparable or not has come up for consideration for the same assessment year in the case of Sumtotal Systems India Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1710/Hyd/2011 wherein Tribunal vide its order dt. 09-05- 2014 has rejected the contentions of assessee for inclusion of six companies under consideration before it. Similar view was also taken in the case of M/s. United Online Software Development (India) Pvt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Softech Ltd. 8.1. With reference to inclusion of these comparables, assessee s contentions are that related party transactions in the case of Aztek and Birla Technologies are within the filters applied by the TPO and with reference to Indium Software P. Ltd. and L & T Infotech, they are functionally similar. It was the submission by the Ld. Counsel that they are not functionally different and TPO should have considered segmentals from the details furnished by Assessee. In the case of L & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sion that assessee has 93% of foreign exchange revenues. It was the submission that above companies are to be selected as comparables. 8.2. After considering the submissions, we are of the opinion that proper case was not made out for inclusion of the above comparables. Once TPO and DRP forms that these comparables are not functionally similar to Assessee on the basis of various filters adopted by the TPO, it would be better if the matter is left like that rather than ordering fresh enquiry. 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

ponded and therefore, TPO was not in a position to include the above case in the absence of segmental data. PSI Data Systems also in our view need not be considered as it has related party transactions. It requires analysis of segmental data to notice whether it has related party transactions. Even with reference to software development services, since there is already a finding by the TPO on this issue, we are of the opinion that there is no need to consider the above comparable at this stage. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

paid etc. Hence, genuineness of the company and its activities are doubted. This finding has not been controverted by Assessee in that case. Considering the facts, the Coordinate Bench felt that the aforesaid company has been rightly rejected as comparable. Since same facts exists we are also of the opinion that the aforesaid company has been rightly rejected, as comparable, even though on a different filter applied by the TPO. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no need 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

or AY. 2005-06 in ITA No. 471/Hyd/2011 dt. 26-08-2015, wherein the issue was considered and decided as under: 23. The next issue which arises for consideration as raised in Ground No.12 is with regard to inclusion of reimbursement cost of ₹ 6,55,57,576 in the operating cost for the purpose of determining ALP of software development services segment. 24. Ld.AR submitted before us, the TPO while determining the ALP of the software development services segment has included the reimbursement 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

t form part of the OC, then, the TPO may be directed to determine the ALP of reimbursement cost separately. 26. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. The ITAT, Hyd. Bench in case of HSBC Electronic Data Process India Ltd. Vs.DCIT in ITA 1624/Hyd/10, dated 28/06/13, while dealing with identical issue held as under: 20. After considering the rival submissions and following the principles laid down in the decisions of the Tribunal cited above, we are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ociated enterprises in the software development services. It is the contention of the assessee that bad debts incurred by the assessee company are in respect of transactions, which are not related to associated enterprises. This contention of the assessee has not been controverted by the Revenue by bringing any material on record before us. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that such bad debts cannot be taken into account for computing the margin of the assessee from t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ngth Margin of 19% determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer. In our considered view, for computing the net margin of the assessee for the purposes of transfer pricing, only the cost related to the transaction with the Associated Enterprises has to be considered and accordingly, we approve that segmental financials is to be considered for the purpose of arriving at the net margin on the international transaction with the assessee's enterprise in respect of software development services. In .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d Enterprises segment. Since the assessing officer had no occasion to verify the veracity of the segmental financials prepared by the assessee company, for limited purpose, we direct the assessing officer to verify the segmental financials prepared by the assessee company and adopt the same for arriving at the net margin on the international transaction with AEs in respect of software development services. We direct accordingly. Respectfully following the same, we direct the Assessing Officer/ T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order of TPO or ld. CIT(A). Since, while considering assessee s appeal we have to restrict ourselves to the grounds raised by assessee, this issue raised by ld. DR is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In vie w of the aforesaid, we direct A.O./T PO to compute ALP afresh keeping in view our directions hereinabove . 14. In view of the Co-ordinate Bench decision in assessee s own case, we direct the TPO to exclude the reimbursement cost from the operating cost for determining the ALP. .....

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 the AY. 2008-09 in ITA No. 1724/Hyd/2012 dt. 22-03-2013 wherein following the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gemplus Jewellery [330 ITR 175] and order of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Sak Soft Limited [121 TTJ 865], AO was directed to exclude the communication charges from both export turnover as well as total turnover, the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is as under: 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have 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

as total turnover. In view of the ratio laid down as aforesaid, we direct the AO to re-compute deduction u/s. 10A after reducing communication charges both from the export turnover as well as total turnover. Accordingly, we allow the ground raised by the assessee . 17. In view of the ratio laid down as above, we direct the AO to re-compute the reduction u/s. 10A after reducing the communication charges both from the export turnover as well as total turnover. Accordingly, we allow Ground No. 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

ther the foreign exchange gain is out export business or not, however, rejected on the reason that the decision of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Intelle Group Asia Pvt. Ltd., was contested before the Hon'ble High Court and also relied on other case law which are given in the context of Section 80IB (Liberty India Vs. CIT) [317 ITR 218] Section 80HHC (CIT Vs. Shah Originals) [327 ITR 19]. 19. After considering the rival contentions, we are considered that this issue is no longer res integra. 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

/s. HSBC Electronic Data Processing India Ltd., Hyderabad in ITA No. 1624/Hyd/2010 dt. 28-06-2013. AO is directed to treat accordingly. The ground is considered allowed. 20. Ground No. 15 pertains to the decision of the AO/DRP in not setting off the carried forward un-absorbed depreciation of ₹ 64,20,841/-, business loss of ₹ 16,77,212/- relating to non- STPI business. Even though DRP has directed the AO to ascertain the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years carried forward and al .....

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 ITA No. 1724/Hyd/2012 has considered the issue and directed the AO to allow the benefit of carried forward loss and un-absorbed depreciation, after deciding the issue in the consequential orders to be passed in pursuant to the directions of ITAT in AY. 2005-06. The direction of the ITAT is as under: 12. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Undisputedly, the ITAT vide its order dated 18- 5-2012 passed in ITA No. 1646/Hyd/10 for assessment year 2005- 06 has held 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

f the learned AR that if the direction of the ITAT is carried out then the assessee will get the benefit of carry forward of loss and assessee s claim of set off of brought forward losses for the impugned assessment year has to be allowed. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, who deem it just and proper to remit the matter to the file of the AO who shall take a decision on the issue after the consequential order is passed in pursuance to the directions of the ITAT in .....

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