Tribunal decision: Exclusion of high-turnover firms, risk adjustment upheld, foreign exchange gains operational, Section 10A deduction criteria.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It directed the exclusion of high-turnover companies from the comparables list, upheld risk adjustment and treatment of foreign exchange gains/losses as operational, and confirmed the exclusion of certain items from total turnover for Section 10A deduction.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Selection of comparables for Transfer Pricing (TP) study.
2. Application of turnover filter for comparables.
3. Risk adjustment in Transfer Pricing.
4. Consideration of foreign exchange gains/losses as operational in nature.
5. Exclusion of items from total turnover for Section 10A deduction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Selection of Comparables for Transfer Pricing Study:

The assessee, engaged in software development services, had selected 21 comparables to justify its profit margin of 11.63%. The TPO rejected most of these comparables, accepting only a few and adding new ones, resulting in a higher mean margin of 24.32%. The TPO’s final list included companies like Tata Elxsi Ltd, Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, Zylog Systems Ltd, Mindtree Ltd, L&T Infotech Ltd, and Infosys Ltd, which had significantly higher turnovers than the assessee.

2. Application of Turnover Filter for Comparables:

The assessee argued for the application of a turnover filter, citing that companies with turnovers exceeding Rs. 200 crores should be excluded from the comparables list. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that companies with significantly higher turnovers are not comparable to the assessee, whose turnover was only Rs. 22.71 crores. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Tata Elxsi Ltd, Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, Zylog Systems Ltd, Mindtree Ltd, L&T Infotech Ltd, and Infosys Ltd from the list of comparables. The Tribunal also directed the inclusion of CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd as a comparable.

3. Risk Adjustment in Transfer Pricing:

The CIT(A) had directed the TPO to provide a risk adjustment to the assessee based on prevailing norms. The Tribunal upheld this direction, noting that the TPO had not properly considered the working capital adjustment and had not given a risk adjustment despite the assessee’s request.

4. Consideration of Foreign Exchange Gains/Losses as Operational in Nature:

The CIT(A) had considered foreign exchange gains/losses as operational in nature. The Tribunal agreed, stating that if such gains/losses are considered operational for the assessee, they should also be considered operational for the comparables. The TPO was directed to work out the margins of the comparables after considering foreign exchange gains/losses as operational.

5. Exclusion of Items from Total Turnover for Section 10A Deduction:

The CIT(A) had directed the AO to exclude from total turnover the items that were excluded from export turnover while working out the deduction under Section 10A. The Tribunal upheld this direction, following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd, which mandates such exclusions.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain high-turnover companies from the comparables list, upheld the CIT(A)’s directions on risk adjustment and foreign exchange gains/losses, and confirmed the exclusion of certain items from total turnover for Section 10A deduction.

---