2015 (5) TMI 258 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal remands segmental details, excludes comparables. Rational expense allocation emphasized. Fair opportunity granted.

Symphony Services Pune Private Limited Versus Income Tax Officer

Symphony Services Pune Private Limited Versus Income Tax Officer - TMI Issues Involved:1. Non-consideration of segmental details of the assessee's financial statements and confining of adjustments only to the associated enterprises (AE) segment.2. Exclusion of Kals Information System Limited from the list of comparables or alternatively, considering the margins of Kals at 18.53% instead of 30.92%.3. Exclusion of E-Zest Solutions Limited from the list of comparables.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Non-consideration of segmental details of the assessee's financial statements and confining of adjustments only to the AE segment:The assessee raised a grievance regarding the addition of Rs. 7,42,04,322/- made by the Assessing Officer to the stated value of international transactions entered with the associated enterprises (AE) to bring the same to the arm's length price. The core issue was the erroneous computation of operating margins of the assessee's AE segment. The assessee contended that the Operating costs relating to the AE segment were wrongly computed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal observed that the best method is to identify expenses on an actual basis wherever possible. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to carry out the exercise of identifying costs on an actual basis to the extent possible and to adopt a rational and scientific method for the expenses that cannot be allocated on an actual basis. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present material and submissions in support of its stand.2. Exclusion of Kals Information System Limited from the list of comparables:The assessee argued that Kals Information System Limited should be excluded from the list of comparables due to functional dissimilarities. The Tribunal noted that Kals Information Systems Limited was engaged in developing and selling software products, which was distinct from the software development services provided by the assessee. The Tribunal referenced precedents, including the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bindview India Pvt. Ltd. and the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd., which excluded Kals Information Systems Limited from comparables due to similar functional dissimilarities. The Tribunal concluded that Kals Information Systems Limited should be excluded from the list of comparables for benchmarking the international transactions of the provision of software development services.3. Exclusion of E-Zest Solutions Limited from the list of comparables:The assessee contended that E-Zest Solutions Limited should be excluded from the list of comparables as it was engaged in providing e-business services and technology consultancy services, which are more in the nature of ITES and not comparable to the software development services provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that E-Zest Solutions Limited was engaged in product development services and technology services, which fall in the category of KPO services. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd., which held that KPO services are not comparable to software development services. The Tribunal concluded that E-Zest Solutions Limited should be excluded from the list of comparables for the period under consideration.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, remanding the issue of segmental details back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and directing the exclusion of Kals Information Systems Limited and E-Zest Solutions Limited from the list of comparables. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a rational and scientific method for expense allocation and allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The order was pronounced in open Court on 30th April, 2014.