Tax Tribunal Adjusts Arm's Length Price Calculation, Excludes Comparables, Orders Expense Disallowance Review.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the AO to recompute the arm's length price by excluding certain comparables and verifying the provision of expenses disallowance. The order was pronounced on 30.09.2016.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Arm's Length Price of International Transactions
2. Rejection of Transfer Pricing Documentation
3. Comparable Companies Selection and Rejection
4. Adjustment for Differences between Assessee and Comparables
5. Use of Multiple Year Data for Comparables
6. Information Gathering under Section 133(6)
7. Interpretation of Law and Judicial Pronouncements
8. Benefit of 5% Range under Proviso to Section 92C(2)
9. Disallowance of Provision of Expenses
10. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Arm's Length Price of International Transactions:
The assessee challenged the decision of the CIT(A) who upheld and enhanced the Transfer Pricing adjustments made by the AO, resulting in an addition of INR 30,767,570 to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO selected 20 companies as comparables, rejecting the assessee's selection, and applied an arithmetic mean of 25.62% to determine the arm's length price, leading to a transfer pricing adjustment of INR 2,66,82,392.

2. Rejection of Transfer Pricing Documentation:
The CIT(A) rejected the Transfer Pricing documentation prepared by the assessee. The Tribunal did not specifically adjudicate on this issue as it was considered general in nature.

3. Comparable Companies Selection and Rejection:
The Tribunal dealt extensively with the selection and rejection of comparable companies. The CIT(A) excluded certain companies like Celestial Biolabs Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd., and Wipro Ltd., and also excluded three more companies suo-motu due to consistent losses. The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd., Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., and Kals Information Systems Ltd. based on functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental accounting. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the related party transactions of Soft Sol Ltd. and exclude it if the transactions exceeded 25% of total sales.

4. Adjustment for Differences between Assessee and Comparables:
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide appropriate adjustments for differences between the assessee and comparables. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the arm's length price after excluding certain comparables.

5. Use of Multiple Year Data for Comparables:
The issue of using multiple year data was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed as "not pressed."

6. Information Gathering under Section 133(6):
The issue regarding the AO's use of information gathered under Section 133(6) was also not pressed by the assessee and dismissed as "not pressed."

7. Interpretation of Law and Judicial Pronouncements:
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) made several observations based on incorrect interpretation of law. However, specific details were not adjudicated as the issue was dismissed as "not pressed."

8. Benefit of 5% Range under Proviso to Section 92C(2):
The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the arm's length price afresh, which made the issue of the 5% range benefit infructuous.

9. Disallowance of Provision of Expenses:
The AO disallowed a provision of expenses of INR 253,936 on the grounds of non-payment and non-deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the amount was offered as income in the subsequent assessment year (2010-11) and, if so, not to disallow the amount in the impugned assessment year.

10. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D:
The issue of interest levy under Sections 234B and 234D was not specifically adjudicated as it was considered general in nature.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal provided a detailed analysis of the selection and rejection of comparable companies, directed the AO to recompute the arm's length price, and provided specific directions regarding the disallowance of provision of expenses. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the order was pronounced on 30.09.2016.

---