TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal orders exclusion of companies from comparables list for Arm's Length Price recalculations. Appeal allowed.</h1> <h3>M/s. Nebulae Technologies Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16 (1), HYDERABAD</h3> M/s. Nebulae Technologies Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16 (1), HYDERABAD - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments.2. Selection of Comparable Companies.Detailed Analysis:1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments:The primary issue in the appeal was the Transfer Pricing adjustments made under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 1,66,75,628/-. The assessee, involved in software development services, had numerous international transactions with its Associated Enterprise (AE), M/s. Yasu Technologies Inc, USA. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) initially proposed adjustments of Rs. 3,65,79,234/-, which was later revised to Rs. 1,66,75,628/- by the Addl. DIT (TP). The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment based on this revised adjustment.Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], the assessee contested various filters, parameters, and the selection of comparable companies. However, the CIT(A) upheld the Addl. DIT(TP)'s order, rejecting the assessee's contentions and maintaining the TP adjustments.2. Selection of Comparable Companies:The assessee raised objections to the selection of certain comparable companies by the TPO. The TPO had selected 26 companies as comparables, out of which the assessee had no objection to the first twelve. The objections were primarily focused on the remaining 14 companies, which had been adjudicated by various Co-ordinate Benches in similar cases.The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and reviewed the orders of the authorities. It was noted that the TPO had selected 26 comparables and proposed the adjustments. The assessee restricted its objections to certain comparables, which had been adjudicated as not comparable in similar cases.The Tribunal excluded the following comparables based on the decisions in various cases:1. Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd: Excluded due to its involvement in product development and super normal profits.2. Infosys Technologies Ltd: Excluded due to its size, turnover, brand value, scale of operation, diversified activities, and ownership of intangibles.3. Ishir Infotech Ltd: Excluded as it failed the employee cost filter.4. Lucid Software Ltd: Excluded due to lack of segmental data for product and software services.5. Megasoft Ltd: Only the segmental margin for software development services was considered.6. Tata Elxsi Ltd: Excluded due to its complex nature of business and lack of segmental details.7. Wipro Ltd: Excluded due to its diversified nature and significant turnover.8. Accel Transmatic Ltd: Excluded as it was functionally different, engaged in various services including 2D/3D animation.9. KALS Information Systems Ltd: Excluded due to its involvement in both software development and software products.10. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd: Excluded due to functional dissimilarity and involvement in product development.11. Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd: Excluded due to low employee cost.Conclusion:The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to exclude the above companies from the list of comparables and to re-compute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) accordingly. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open Court on 31st August 2016.
TaxTMI 