Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (11) TMI 800

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er and other computer related activities to carry out development in the area of information technology, computer systems, software, application software, integrated tolls for computer systems and application development, data communication and network. The international transaction was software development and support services for Rs. 14,31,12,709/-. The assessee used TNMM as the method and OP/TC as the PLI. The assessee arrived at a set of 23 companies with an average margin of 7.64%. The assessee has used multiple year data. The assessee's own margin is worked out to be 7.99%. Based on this analysis, the assessee concluded that its international transactions are at arm's length. A show cause notice dated 05.12.2014 was issued to the assessee. The assessee made reply dated 17.12.2014 in responses to the show cause notice and the personal hearing was conducted on the same day. The TPO rejected the objections raised by the Assessee by rejecting the economic analysis of the assessee. Foreign exchange fluctuation was also treated as non operating income of the taxpayer and also in the case of comparables by the TPO. 3. The TPO applied the following quantitative and qualitative filte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....process management services. The company is a software product company. Company in year 2012 has launched its product in the name of 'FLoW' for the retail sector users. Wipro Technology Services Ltd., which was earlier Citi Technology Services Ltd., was held by Citi Corp. Banking Corporation, USA upto 20th January, 2009. Wipro Ltd., parent company of the assessee, executed an agreement with Citi Group Inc., for acquiring Citi Technology Services Ltd., now called Wipro Technology Services Ltd. On 21.1.2009, Wipro Ltd. signed a master agreement with Citi Group Inc., for the delivery of technology Infrastructure Services and application development and maintenance services for the period of six years, which also includes the year under consideration. This shows that income from software development support and maintenance services was earned by Wipro Technology Services Ltd., from Citi Group Inc., by means of master service agreement entered into between Wipro Ltd., its parent company and Citi Group Inc., a third person. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pitney Bowes Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 7066/Del/14), wherein i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....product in the name of 'FLoW' for the retail sector users. But the assessee company is not a software product company, it is undertaking software development and installation of computerized systems, conduct studies, systems analysis and design as well as design of special software and system and application of software. The assessee is also engaged in rendering technical services related to tabulation, coding and software development as well as export of software and other computer related activities to carry out development in the area of information technology. There is difference between software product and undertaking software development. A product is outcome of research and development but a development is one stage prior to product. Development might sometime stop at the research stage to offer solutions to Information Technology Industries' problems. In assessee's case it is undertaking software development which is more of an event constituting a new stage in a changing situation, than a complete product. Therefore, WIPRO Technologies Ltd. is functionally different from the assessee company and should have been excluded by the TPO. We therefore, direct TPO to exclude thi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not available in the financial statement. The assessee company cannot be compare with this company as there is not segmental data available. Besides, this there was extra-ordinary events occurred during the year as the company has acquired M/s. Brainhunter Inc., Canada. Thus, as held by this Tribunal in various decisions companies having extra-ordinary event has to be excluded. Therefore, we direct TPO to exclude this company from comparables. 4.7 Persistent Systems & Solutions Ltd. The Ld. AR submitted that the company is "functionally not comparable because of the incomparable financial results arising out of the exceptional circumstances in the financial year ending on 31st March, 2011. The Ld. AR submitted that the company is earning abnormal profits during the Financial Year 2010-11 on the basis of below facts: Year 2009 2010 2011 Net Profit 83,58,124 70,40,403 2,44,02,141 Sales (In crores) 3.52 6.70 19 During the year ending 2011, the turnover of the company increased by 184%, i.e. from Rs. 6,67,28,828 to Rs. 18,94,90,457 from the preceding year. Further, the net profit of the company increased by 247%, i.e., from Rs. 70,40,403 to Rs. 2,44,02,141. The Ld. AR r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T (ITA no 1969/D/2006) * Sapient Corporation Pvt Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No 5263/Del/2010) * ACIT vs. NIT Limited (ITA No. 1844/Del/2009 * Symantec Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT 4.8. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO and the DRP. 4.9. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The company is functionally not comparable because of the incomparable financial results arising out of the exceptional circumstances in the financial year ending on 31st March, 2011 as pointed out by the Ld. AR. The Ld. DR could not refute the submissions of the Ld. AR as the documents/TP Study reveals the same on record. In fact, the company is earning abnormal profits during the Financial Year 2010-11. Therefore, this company is not comparable with the assessee company. Thus, we direct TPO to exclude this company as comparable. 4.10 Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. The Ld. AR submitted that as regards this company there is non-availability of data wise information of segments with respect to software development services in the annual report. The Ld. AR relied upon the case of Saxo India Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 6148/del/2015) whereby Tribunal directed to exclude th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no segmental bifurcation as relates to software services and software product available. Therefore, this company should be excluded from the comparables. Thus, we direct the TPO to exclude this comparable. 4.13 Larsesn & Turbo Infotech Ltd. The Ld. AR submitted that this company is engaged in two business segments, namely, software development services and software products. However, segmental data with respect to business segment is not available in the annual report of the company. From the audited financial statement and website, it is evident that the company is earning revenue from two business segments, viz., software development and software product. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saxo India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 6148/Del/2015), wherein, L&T Infotech Ltd. was directed to be excluded holding that the company is also engaged in business of software product and segmental information is not available. Relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: "12.2. Having regard to the rival submissions and perusal of the relevant material on record, we find from the Annual report of this company, which is available in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contained in para 21.67 of the TPO's order. Even Schedule-11 to the Profit & Loss Account also shows 'Sale of software services and Products.' This shows that this company is engaged in both rendering software development services as well as sale of software products. Albeit the percentage of software products in the total revenue is less, as has been noted by the TPO, yet, we are inclined to take it as non-comparable because there is no precise information about the contribution made by such small sale of software products to the total profit of the company. As no segmental information is available in respect of this company and the figures have been adopted by the TPO at entity level, we, therefore, order for the exclusion of this company from the list of comparables." 4.17. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO and DRP 4.18. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Persistent Systems Limited is engaged in product development, product design and analysis service is functionally different from a pure software service provider and therefore ought to be excluded. Thus, this company is functionally different from that of assessee company. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the profitability of the company. The company is not showing employee cost as separate head of expenses and is included in cost of services. 5.6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Annual Report of the company clearly sets that this company is dealing with software Development, Product & Services and there is no segmental data available for software development, product and services. Thus, the company is not only functionally different but also segmental data is not available. Therefore, this company is not fulfilling the criteria of the comparable for Arms' Length Price. Thus, we reject this company as comparable. 5.7 Chakkilam Infotech Limited The Ld. AR submitted that the company is engaged in the business of providing software development services and accordingly, functionally comparable to the assessee company. There is audited financial statement is also available for this company. 5.8. The Ld. DR submitted that the TPO rightly rejected this as comparable because there is non-availability of the data. 5.9 We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Annual Report of the company clearly sets that this company is dealing with softwa....