TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Recompute arm's-length price under Section 92C excluding non-comparable high-turnover or functionally dissimilar comparables; e-connectivity charges revenue</h1> ITAT (Mumbai, AT) directed the AO/TPO to re-determine arm's-length price after excluding comparables whose turnover exceeds about 20 times that of the ... TPA - Selection of comparables - transfer pricing adjustment relating to information technology and network support service - Held that:- Companies which are having more than 20 times the turnover of the assessee from software development services segment cannot be treated as comparables - thus AO / Transfer Pricing Officer is directed to determine arm's length price afresh after removing the companies having turnover of more than ₹ 20 crore - companies being functionally different with that of assessee who is rpoviding information technology and network support services are to be removed from the selection of comparables. E-connectivity charges - revenue v/s capital - Held that:- The expenditure incurred by the assessee is not for acquiring any software - following the view in assesse's own case of UCB INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ITO 7 (3) -3, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI AND VICE-VERSA [2016 (5) TMI 1276 - ITAT MUMBAI] we hold that the e-connectivity charges paid by the assessee are of Revenue in nature Issues Involved1. General addition to total income.2. Rejection of economic analysis.3. Undertaking fresh economic analysis and use of contemporaneous data.4. Use of arbitrary filters.5. Use of additional comparable companies.6. Incorrect margins.7. Working Capital Adjustment and Risk Adjustment.8. Disallowance of e-connectivity expenses.9. Double addition on account of depreciation.10. Interest under section 234A.Detailed Analysis of JudgmentGeneral Addition to Total IncomeIssue: The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 82,01,497 to the total income.Judgment: Ground no.1 being general in nature, no specific adjudication was required.Rejection of Economic AnalysisIssue: The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 8,45,126 by rejecting their economic analysis for IT and network support services.Judgment: The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the assessee's transfer pricing study for not adhering to rule 10B(4) and conducted an independent analysis, leading to the addition. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's adjustment except for certain margin computation errors.Undertaking Fresh Economic Analysis and Use of Contemporaneous DataIssue: The TPO undertook a fresh comparability analysis post the specified date and relied on non-public information obtained under section 133(6).Judgment: The TPO's fresh analysis and reliance on non-public data were upheld by the DRP. The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude companies with turnover exceeding Rs. 20 crore from the list of comparables, considering the assessee's turnover was Rs. 87,39,095.Use of Arbitrary FiltersIssue: The TPO applied arbitrary filters such as turnover criteria, employee cost criteria, onsite revenue criteria, and export turnover criteria.Judgment: The Tribunal found the TPO's application of filters inconsistent, especially the turnover filter, and directed the exclusion of companies with turnover more than Rs. 20 crore.Use of Additional Comparable CompaniesIssue: The TPO included companies functionally different from the assessee for benchmarking.Judgment: The Tribunal excluded companies like Infosys Technologies Ltd., Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., Celestial Biolabs Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., Wipro Ltd., and E-Zest Solutions Ltd. due to functional dissimilarities and high turnover.Incorrect MarginsIssue: The TPO computed incorrect margins by considering rent income as operating income and not allocating unallocated expenses to the comparable segment.Judgment: The Tribunal directed the TPO to recompute the arm's length price after excluding certain comparables.Working Capital Adjustment and Risk AdjustmentIssue: The TPO compared full-fledged risk-bearing entities with the assessee’s captive operations without risk adjustment and did not consider working capital adjustment.Judgment: The Tribunal's directions to exclude high turnover companies indirectly addressed the risk profile and working capital adjustment issues.Disallowance of E-Connectivity ExpensesIssue: The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 31,76,461 by classifying e-connectivity charges as capital expenditure.Judgment: The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim, referencing previous decisions in the assessee's favor, and deleted the addition.Double Addition on Account of DepreciationIssue: The assessee did not press this ground.Judgment: Ground no.14 was dismissed as 'not pressed.'Interest Under Section 234AIssue: The assessee did not press this ground.Judgment: Ground no.15 was dismissed as 'not pressed.'ConclusionThe Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the TPO to exclude companies with turnover exceeding Rs. 20 crore and recompute the arm's length price. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 31,76,461 for e-connectivity charges, treating them as revenue expenditure. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
