Appeal partly allowed with issues remitted for review; TPO's rejection upheld; adjustments made

The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remitted back to the TPO for re-examination and verification. The TPO's rejection of the Transfer Pricing Study was upheld, resulting in an adjustment to the total income of the assessee. The consideration of segmental information and computation of the margin of the assessee were remitted back to the TPO for further review. Working capital adjustments were deemed necessary, and the application of filters by the TPO was upheld. The selection of comparables was revisited, and the issue of credit for Taxes Deducted at Source was remitted for verification. The computation of interest liability under Sections 234B and 234C required no adjudication.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Transfer Pricing (TP) Study by the TPO.
2. Consideration of segmental information for computing the margin of the assessee.
3. Incorrect computation of margin of the assessee.
4. Grant of working capital adjustment.
5. Application of filters by the TPO.
6. Selection of comparables by the TPO.
7. Use of multiple year data.
8. Risk profile for captive service provider.
9. Credit for taxes deducted at source (TDS).
10. Computation of interest liability under sections 234B and 234C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Transfer Pricing (TP) Study by the TPO:
The TPO rejected the TP study of the assessee on grounds such as the use of non-current financial year data, selection of companies with declining sales and persistent losses, and non-reliable data. The TPO conducted a fresh TP study with specific filters and determined an adjustment of Rs. 6,13,43,840 to the total income of the assessee.

2. Consideration of Segmental Information:
The TPO rejected the segmental information provided by the assessee, stating it was unaudited and unreliable. The ITAT cited precedents where segmental information must be considered unless specific issues are shown. The matter was remitted back to the TPO to verify if the assessee maintained separate audited books for Software Development Services and to use only the AE segment for computing the assessee's PLI.

3. Incorrect Computation of Margin of the Assessee:
The TPO considered foreign exchange loss as operating loss. The ITAT differentiated the assessee's case from the Teva India (P) Ltd. case and followed precedents where foreign exchange fluctuations are part of normal business operations. The issue was remitted back to the TPO to consider only the foreign exchange loss attributable to AE transactions and operative in nature.

4. Grant of Working Capital Adjustment:
The ITAT relied on the decision in Demag Cranes & Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. and held that appropriate working capital adjustment is required. The issue was set aside to the TPO with directions to allow requisite adjustments on account of working capital while determining the margins of comparable transactions.

5. Application of Filters by the TPO:
The assessee objected to certain filters applied by the TPO. The ITAT found no reason to disturb the application of filters as carried out by the TPO and dismissed the related grounds.

6. Selection of Comparables:
- Bodhtree Consulting Ltd.: The ITAT followed the decision in CISCO Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. and rejected Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. as a comparable.
- Infosys Ltd. and KALS Information Systems Ltd.: The ITAT followed the Bangalore Bench's decision in CISCO Systems and held these companies should not be regarded as comparables.
- Comp-U-Learn Tech India Ltd.: The ITAT directed the TPO to re-examine the comparability of this company.
- CG-Vak Solutions & Exports Ltd. and Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd.: The ITAT remitted the issue back to the TPO for fresh application of filters.

7. Use of Multiple Year Data:
The ground was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed as not pressed.

8. Risk Profile for Captive Service Provider:
The ITAT followed the decision in Excellence Data Research and remitted the issue to the TPO to consider the risk profile of the assessee and allow necessary deductions for risk adjustment after finalizing the list of comparables.

9. Credit for Taxes Deducted at Source (TDS):
The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to verify and grant credit in respect of TDS.

10. Computation of Interest Liability under Sections 234B and 234C:
This ground was consequential and needed no adjudication.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remitted back to the TPO for re-examination and verification.

---