Tribunal Excludes Expenses, Adjusts Comparables in Transfer Pricing Case

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain expenses from both export turnover and total turnover, accepting the assessee's plea. In the international transaction case, the Tribunal excluded certain companies from the list of comparables and directed the TPO to recompute the Arm's Length Price, resulting in a partial allowance of the assessee's appeal. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal precedents and functional comparability in transfer pricing adjustments.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of expenses from export turnover while computing deduction under section 10A.
2. Addition to the total income by way of adjustment to the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for an international transaction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exclusion of Expenses from Export Turnover:
The primary issue raised by the assessee concerns the exclusion of travel expenses in foreign currency and telecommunication expenses from the export turnover while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that these expenses should not be excluded as they were incurred in the development of computer software, not in rendering technical services. Alternatively, the assessee argued that if these expenses are excluded from the export turnover, they should also be excluded from the total turnover. The Tribunal, considering the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Karn), directed the Assessing Officer to exclude these expenses from both export turnover and total turnover, thus accepting the assessee's alternate plea. Consequently, no further adjudication was required on this issue.

2. Adjustment to Arm's Length Price (ALP):
The second issue pertains to the addition to the total income by way of adjustment to the ALP for an international transaction between the assessee and its Associated Enterprise (AE). The assessee, a wholly-owned subsidiary of a US-based company, provided software development research and development services to its holding company and was remunerated on a cost-plus 10% markup basis. The transaction was subjected to the ALP test as per section 92C of the Act. The assessee adopted the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) and reported an operating profit margin of 11.37%.

The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) identified 20 comparable companies and determined an adjusted arithmetic mean PLI of 19.17%, leading to a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 68,91,931. The assessee challenged the comparables chosen by the TPO and the methodology adopted. The Tribunal, referencing its decision in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd., directed the exclusion of certain companies with turnovers exceeding Rs. 200 crores from the final list of comparables, as they were not comparable to the assessee's turnover of less than Rs. 20 crores.

Additionally, the Tribunal excluded KALS Information Systems Limited and Accel Transmatic Limited from the comparables, as they were not functionally similar to the assessee. Tata Elxsi Ltd. was also excluded based on a prior Tribunal decision, which found it not functionally comparable to a software development service provider. For Megasoft Ltd., the Tribunal directed that only the segmental margin related to software services should be considered.

The Tribunal concluded that if the specified comparables are excluded, the profit margin of the assessee would fall within the permissible range, and thus, the price received by the assessee would be considered at arm's length. The Tribunal directed the TPO to recompute the ALP accordingly, resulting in a partial allowance of the assessee's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's judgment addressed the exclusion of certain expenses from export turnover and the proper selection of comparables for determining the ALP in international transactions. The decision emphasized adherence to established legal precedents and functional comparability in transfer pricing adjustments.

---