Assessee's transfer pricing adjusted: OP/total-cost PLI fixed at 9%, addition capped at Rs.17,32,27,953; Sec.10A allocations partly upheld

ITAT allowed the assessee's transfer-pricing contentions: OP/total-cost PLI was fixed at 9% (not 6.88%). Several alleged comparables were excluded for lack of functional similarity or segmental data, while one comparable was retained; transfer-pricing addition was restricted to Rs. 17,32,27,953. For international support-services the Tribunal found the prices were at arm's length and disallowed adjustment. On Sec.10A deductions the Tribunal upheld the assessee's employee-count basis for allocating recruitment, accepted travel allocation subject to identification of hotel charges for 10A projects, upheld software-license allocation, but sustained AO's turnover-based allocation for communication costs. Classification of computer software (revenue v. capital) was remitted for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 38,20,29,316 in respect of software development services is justified and, if not, the correct adjustment; (ii) Whether any transfer pricing adjustment is warranted for marketing support services; (iii) Whether allocation of common expenses between Sec.10A (STPI) and non-10A units on the basis of turnover by the AO is correct or the assessee's head-count / other allocations should be accepted; (iv) Whether computer software licence charges of Rs. 2,94,28,480 are revenue in nature or capital and require re-examination.

Issue (i): Whether the TPO/DRP addition of Rs. 38,20,29,316 for software development services is sustainable and what adjustment should be made.

Analysis: The Tribunal evaluated the PLI computation, accepted that provisions written back should not be treated so as to reduce the assessee's net margin (resulting in an OP/TC of 9% for the assessee), examined the comparables selected by the TPO and excluded those found functionally dissimilar or affected by related party transactions, applied working-capital adjustments, and calculated a revised arithmetic mean of the accepted comparables to determine ALP.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment is reduced and restricted to Rs. 17,32,27,953 in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the marketing support services received by the assessee require a TP adjustment of Rs. 1,52,73,728.

Analysis: The Tribunal compared the functional profile of the assessee's marketing support activities with the comparables used by the TPO, found the principal comparable (ICC International Agencies Ltd.) functionally dissimilar, and observed that excluding that comparable places the assessee's margin within the range of the remaining comparables.

Conclusion: No transfer pricing adjustment is required for marketing support services; the assessee succeeds on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether the AO's apportionment of common expenses between the Sec.10A unit and non-10A unit on the basis of turnover is correct.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the nature of various common expenses, precedents on head-count allocation, the commencement timing of the STPI unit, and found that expenses referable to employees are appropriately allocated by head-count while other common expenses not referable to employees should be allocated on a turnover basis; certain items (hotel expenses) require the assessee to furnish detailed evidence and be reallocated accordingly.

Conclusion: The AO's turnover-based reallocation is not wholly sustained; allocation on the basis of number of employees is upheld for employee-related costs, some items are to be reallocated on turnover or on the basis of project-specific evidence Grounds 7 and 8 are partly allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether computer software licence costs totalling Rs. 2,94,28,480 are revenue in nature or capital expenditure.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the question involves application of principles laid down by the Special Bench (Amway) and requires further examination of facts and classification criteria.

Conclusion: The issue is remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the Special Bench principles; Ground 9 is treated as partly allowed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed overall: the software development TP addition is substantially reduced, the marketing support service adjustment is set aside, allocations between 10A and non-10A units are modified in part, and the software licence classification is remitted for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Functional comparability and correct computation of the assessee's PLI (including proper treatment of reversals) govern TP adjustments under the arithmetic mean method; functionally dissimilar comparables and unacceptable data obtained under Section 133(6) should be excluded, segmental margins may be used where entity-level figures distort comparability, and allocation of common expenses should follow the most reliable factual basis (e.g., head-count for employee-related costs, turnover or project-specific evidence for other common costs).

---