Tribunal's Decision on Transfer Pricing Appeals: Key Points and Adjustments

The Tribunal partly allowed both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals in a transfer pricing case. The Tribunal directed the re-examination of the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for Transfer Pricing, application of filters for comparables, inclusion/exclusion of specific comparable companies, and working capital and risk adjustment. It upheld the exclusion of companies with related party transactions exceeding 15% and turnover filters. The Tribunal dismissed the application of the +/- 5% range as per Section 92C(2) and did not address the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234D specifically.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Selection of Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for Transfer Pricing.
2. Application of filters for comparables, including Related Party Transactions (RPT) and Turnover.
3. Inclusion and exclusion of specific comparable companies.
4. Working capital and risk adjustment.
5. Application of +/- 5% range as per proviso to Section 92C(2).
6. Levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234D.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Selection of Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for Transfer Pricing:
- The assessee initially adopted the Cost Plus Method (CPM) to justify the price charged to its Associated Enterprise (AE). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected CPM and adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method. The CIT (Appeals) rejected both CPM and CUP, adopting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the MAM. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not dispute the selection of TNMM as the MAM before it.

2. Application of Filters for Comparables:
- Related Party Transactions (RPT): The CIT (Appeals) applied an RPT filter of more than 0%, excluding companies with any RPT. The Tribunal, following the decision in 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd., held that companies with RPT in excess of 15% should be excluded. Consequently, companies such as Mphasis BFL Ltd., Kshema Technologies Ltd., and Orient Information Technologies Ltd. were included as they had RPTs below 15%.
- Turnover Filter: The CIT (Appeals) applied a turnover filter of Rs. 200 Crores, excluding companies like Infosys Technologies Ltd. and Satyam Computer Services Ltd. The Tribunal upheld this filter, following the decision in Genesys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.

3. Inclusion and Exclusion of Specific Comparable Companies:
- Xcel Vision Technologies: The Tribunal excluded this company as it failed the employee cost filter of 25% applied by the CIT (Appeals).
- Cherry Soft Technologies Ltd.: The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT (Appeals) for re-examination regarding the on-site revenue filter.
- Geometric Software Solutions Ltd.: The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of this company due to its diversified activities and RPT exceeding 15%.
- Visualsoft Technologies Ltd.: The Tribunal reinstated this company as a comparable, noting that the CIT (Appeals) did not factually establish that its on-site revenue exceeded 75%.

4. Working Capital and Risk Adjustment:
- The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO)/TPO to re-examine the assessee's claim for working capital and risk adjustment, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2003-04, where an ad-hoc adjustment of 2% was allowed.

5. Application of +/- 5% Range as per Proviso to Section 92C(2):
- The Tribunal dismissed this ground, noting that post the clarificatory amendment by Finance Act, 2012, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of +/- 5%.

6. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D:
- The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis provided.

Conclusion:
- Both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal provided specific directions for re-examination and adjustments, ensuring adherence to legal precedents and proper application of filters for comparables.

---