2015 (6) TMI 1181 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal aligns ALP, excludes comparables, and remands working capital dispute for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies as comparables, aligning the Arm's Length Price (ALP) calculated by the appellant with the ... TP adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Referring to assessee's international transactions of provision of contract IT services and provision of marketing support services companies functinally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list. Issues:1. Selection of comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).2. Working capital adjustment dispute.Issue 1: Selection of comparables by the TPO for determining the ALP:The appeals were filed against the Assessing Officer's orders for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, concerning the selection of comparables by the TPO for determining the ALP. The TPO's inclusion of certain comparables was challenged by the appellant, emphasizing the need to exclude specific companies based on previous Tribunal orders. The appellant's counsel argued for the exclusion of particular comparables, citing precedents from earlier assessment years. The Standing Counsel opposed this contention without providing a valid distinction between the current and previous assessment years. The Tribunal decided to follow its earlier order and directed the exclusion of companies like Infosys Technologies Ltd., KALS Information Systems Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., and Wipro Ltd. from the list of comparables. This exclusion led to the alignment of the ALP calculated by the appellant with that determined by the Revenue, resulting in partial allowance of the appeal.Issue 2: Working capital adjustment dispute:In the assessment for the year 2009-10, the dispute also revolved around the selection of comparables by the TPO and the grant of a 'working capital adjustment.' The appellant's counsel argued for the elimination of Infosys Technologies Ltd. as a comparable, following a precedent set in an earlier Tribunal order. Additionally, the appellant sought a working capital adjustment, which was contested by the Ld. DR, claiming that the necessary data was not provided to the authorities. The Tribunal noted that the contentions regarding the working capital adjustment were not adequately addressed by the TPO and the DRP. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to consider the data provided by the appellant and the legal precedents on working capital adjustments from cases like Mentor Graphics Pvt. Ltd., E-Gain Communication (P) Ltd., Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd., and Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was partially allowed, and the matter was directed for reconsideration in accordance with the law and relevant precedents.In conclusion, the judgments addressed the issues related to the selection of comparables for determining the ALP and the working capital adjustment dispute, providing detailed analysis and directions for further adjudication in accordance with legal principles and precedents.