Tribunal directs AO on turnover exclusion for Section 10A, upholds TP comparables exclusion, remits working capital adjustment.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to exclude specific amounts from the total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following established principles. Regarding transfer pricing issues, the Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain comparables due to functional differences and other factors, remitting the working capital adjustment back to the Transfer Pricing Officer for reassessment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, instructing a reexamination of the issues by the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer in line with the Tribunal's directions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Definition of export turnover and total turnover for Section 10A deduction.
2. Transfer Pricing issues concerning comparability and working capital adjustment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition of Export Turnover and Total Turnover for Section 10A Deduction:

The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) erred in excluding the foreign exchange gain of Rs. 10,36,754 from the 'export turnover' for computing the deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Alternatively, the A.O. should have excluded the same from the 'total turnover'. Additionally, the assessee argued that communication expenses of Rs. 1,70,07,809 should be deducted from both total turnover and export turnover.

The assessee relied on the decision of ITO vs. Sak Soft Ltd., 313 ITR 353, where the Tribunal upheld the parity concept, i.e., any exclusion from 'export turnover' should also be excluded from 'total turnover' for the purpose of computing deductions under Section 10A. This principle was also upheld in other cases such as ITO vs. DE Block India Software (P) Ltd., ITO vs. Virtusa (India) Ltd., and DCIT vs. Mentor Graphics (I) P. Ltd.

The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) acknowledged these decisions but upheld the A.O.'s decision to keep the issue alive for the department to pursue further. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the A.O. to exclude the same amounts from the total turnover, allowing Ground Nos. 3 to 5.2.

2. Transfer Pricing Issues:

The assessee, engaged in software development services, reported transactions with its Associated Enterprises (A.E.) and filed a Transfer Pricing (T.P.) report prepared by Deloitte, Haskins & Sells. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the report due to the use of multiple-year data and other deficiencies. The TPO accepted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) but selected 20 companies as comparables.

The assessee objected to specific comparables, particularly Accel Transmatic Ltd., KALS Info Systems Ltd., Megasoft Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., and Flextronics Software Systems Ltd., arguing they were not comparable due to functional differences, exceptional financial years, or failing the Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter. The Tribunal analyzed these objections based on precedents and functional profiles:

- Accel Transmatic Ltd. and KALS Info Systems Ltd.: Excluded due to functional differences and failing the RPT filter, as supported by decisions in Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd.
- Megasoft Ltd.: Directed the TPO to consider only the software development services segment for comparability.
- Infosys Technologies Ltd.: Excluded due to its diversified activities, brand value, and scale of operations, making it incomparable to a small captive service provider.
- Tata Elxsi Ltd.: Excluded based on its specialized embedded software development and complex segments.
- Flextronics Software Systems Ltd.: The issue was restored to the TPO to examine functional comparability, considering previous years' decisions.

The Tribunal rejected the inclusion of certain companies proposed by the assessee due to valid reasons provided by the TPO and lack of supporting decisions from coordinate benches.

Working Capital Adjustment:

The assessee argued against the negative working capital adjustment, stating it did not bear any working capital risk and had no interest payments related to working capital loans. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in Cordys Software India P. Ltd., remitted the issue back to the TPO to rework the adjustment, considering the assessee's submissions and principles laid down by various coordinate bench decisions.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the A.O. and TPO to reexamine the issues as per the Tribunal's guidance. The order was pronounced in the open court on 02.01.2015.

---