Transfer Pricing Capacity Adjustment Denied Due to Lack of Reliable Data and Comparable Selection Issues Under Section 92B(2)

Saxo India Pvt. Ltd Versus. ACIT,

Saxo India Pvt. Ltd Versus. ACIT, - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
2. Calculation of Assessee's Profit Level Indicator (PLI)
3. Inclusion of Comparables

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The core issue in this appeal was the addition of Rs. 7,76,66,682 on account of transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee, engaged in software development and technical support services, reported four international transactions, with the "Provision of Software Development" being disputed. The assessee applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to demonstrate that the international transaction was at Arm's Length Price (ALP). The assessee's profit margin from this transaction was 22.63% against the mean margin of 17.91% from five comparables. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) observed a discrepancy in the Profit Level Indicator (PLI), showing an overall OP/OC at (-)15.34% while the transaction's profit margin was shown at 22.63%. The TPO refused any comparability adjustment claimed by the assessee, leading to the contested addition.

2. Calculation of Assessee's Profit Level Indicator (PLI):
The assessee challenged the TPO's calculation of its PLI, specifically the non-granting of capacity utilization adjustment. The TPO calculated the PLI at (-)12.65%, which the assessee disputed. The tribunal clarified that adjustments due to differences between the assessee and comparables should be made in the profit margin of comparables, not in the assessee's profit margin. The tribunal found the assessee's calculation of capacity utilization adjustment unjustified, noting that the assessee had excluded significant operating expenses and used an inflated full bench capacity figure. The tribunal emphasized that for any adjustment, the burden of proof lies on the assessee to demonstrate the comparables' capacity utilization levels. In the absence of such data, the tribunal denied the capacity adjustment.

3. Inclusion of Comparables:
The assessee contested the inclusion of ten companies in the final list of comparables. The tribunal examined each company as follows:

- E-Infochips Limited: Excluded due to functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental data separating software services from product sales.
- E-Zest Solutions: Retained as comparable due to functional similarity in providing software development services.
- L&T Infotech Ltd.: Excluded due to involvement in both software services and product sales without segmental data.
- Persistent Systems and Solutions Ltd.: Retained as comparable due to similarity in software development services.
- Persistent Systems Ltd.: Excluded due to involvement in both software services and product sales without segmental data.
- Sasken Communications Technologies Ltd.: Excluded due to involvement in both software services and product sales without segmental data.
- Wipro Technology Services Ltd.: Excluded due to significant related party transactions and being part of a master service agreement with the parent company, making it an international transaction.
- Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg.): Retained as comparable on segmental level, similar to the assessee's activities.
- Sankhya Infotech Ltd. (Seg.): Retained as comparable on segmental level, similar to the assessee's activities.
- Zylog Systems Ltd.: Remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to present objections.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh computation of ALP in conformity with the tribunal's discussion, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.