Section 10A Exemption Allowed; Uniform Turnover Calculation and Comparable Exclusions Clarified for Transfer Pricing

The ITAT Hyderabad partially allowed the assessee's appeal regarding exemption under section 10A and transfer pricing adjustments. It held that any expenditure excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain uniformity in calculating export turnover ratios. The tribunal directed the AO/TPO to exclude companies engaged in both product development and software services from comparables unless segmental data is available, emphasizing that inappropriate allocation of expenses between segments renders such comparables unreliable. Further, the AO/TPO was instructed to exclude comparables with related party transactions exceeding 15% of total revenue after verification. The decision followed precedents favoring the assessee and recognized the beneficial intent of section 10A.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of relief under section 10A.
2. Selection of comparable companies for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) under Transfer Pricing regulations.
3. Exclusion of communication expenses from export turnover and total turnover for computing deduction under section 10A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of Relief under Section 10A:
The assessee argued that communication expenses of Rs. 10,60,618/- should not be excluded from the export turnover for computing the deduction under section 10A, as these expenses were incurred in the normal course of business. Alternatively, if excluded from the export turnover, they should also be excluded from the total turnover. The Tribunal, following the Karnataka High Court decision in Tata Elxsi Ltd., directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the communication expenses from both the export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computing the deduction under section 10A.

2. Selection of Comparable Companies for Determining the ALP:
The primary issue was the selection of comparable companies by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the ALP. The Tribunal addressed objections to specific companies:

- Exensys Software Solutions Limited: The assessee objected to its inclusion due to an extraordinary event (amalgamation with Holool India Limited) affecting its margins. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the TPO for reconsideration, directing exclusion if the amalgamation impacted financial results.

- Infosys Technologies Limited: The Tribunal excluded this company, noting its giant status and diversified activities, making it incomparable to the assessee, a smaller entity.

- Tata Elxsi Limited: The Tribunal remanded this issue to the TPO to reconsider its inclusion based on new information indicating its specialized nature in embedded software development.

- Flextronics Software Limited, Foursoft Limited, and Thirdware Software Solution Limited: The Tribunal found these companies engaged in both software and product development, lacking segmental details. It directed their exclusion due to functional dissimilarity and the inability to make suitable adjustments for differences.

- Megasoft Limited: The Tribunal directed the TPO to consider only the segmental margin of its software development services, as the TPO had incorrectly used the combined result.

- Kals Information Systems Limited and Lucid Software Limited: The Tribunal excluded these companies based on functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental data, following precedents from other Tribunal decisions.

- Accel Transmatic Limited and Avani Syncom Technologies Limited: The Tribunal directed their exclusion, citing functional differences and reliance on previous Tribunal decisions.

- Ishir Infotech Limited: The Tribunal excluded this company due to its failure to meet the employee cost filter and related party transaction (RPT) filter, following the precedent set by the Bangalore Tribunal.

3. Exclusion of Communication Expenses from Export Turnover and Total Turnover:
The Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order to exclude communication expenses from both export turnover and total turnover was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, aligning with the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Tata Elxsi Ltd.

Conclusion:
- The assessee's appeals (ITA.No.1196/Hyd/2010 and ITA.No.2102/Hyd/2011) were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the Assessing Officer/TPO for reconsideration and exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables.
- The Revenue's appeal (ITA.No.1197/Hyd/2010) was dismissed.
- The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of functional similarity and availability of segmental data for selecting comparables in transfer pricing cases.

---