Tribunal Rules on Transfer Pricing, Turnover Filters, and Related Party Transactions

The Tribunal addressed transfer pricing adjustment, turnover and related party transaction filters, functional dissimilarity of comparables, and exclusion of expenses from export turnover. It directed the exclusion of certain functionally dissimilar companies from comparables, set aside turnover filters, and remanded the expense exclusion issue for verification. The Tribunal's decisions were based on precedents and case-specific facts.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
2. Turnover Filter and Related Party Transaction (RPT) Filter
3. Functional Dissimilarity of Comparable Companies
4. Exclusion of Telecommunication and Travelling Expenses from Export Turnover
5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B & 234C

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The assessee challenged the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,16,68,539 made under Section 92CA of the IT Act. The assessee contended that the TPO used incorrect operating revenue and expenses, and the DRP upheld the TPO's action. The DRP also rejected certain comparable companies selected by the TPO on grounds of turnover filter and related party transactions (RPT). The assessee argued that the DRP was unjustified in rejecting companies with RPT within 15% and in selecting companies like ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. and Kals Information Systems Ltd., which were functionally dissimilar.

2. Turnover Filter and Related Party Transaction (RPT) Filter:
The DRP applied a turnover filter of Rs. 1 to Rs. 200 Crores and a 0% RPT filter, which was challenged by both the revenue and the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the ALP should consider uncontrolled comparable prices, and a 0% RPT is impractical. A tolerance range of 5% to 25% RPT is generally acceptable. The Tribunal concurred with the view that a 15% RPT filter is appropriate for the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of companies with more than 15% RPT and set aside the turnover filter applied by the DRP.

3. Functional Dissimilarity of Comparable Companies:
The assessee sought the exclusion of eight companies from the set of comparables selected by the TPO on grounds of functional dissimilarity and exceeding the 15% RPT threshold. The Tribunal examined each company's functional profile:

- ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. (Seg.): Engaged in diversified activities like software development, consultancy, engineering services, and business analytics. The Tribunal found it functionally dissimilar and noted its RPT was 15.37%.

- Infosys Ltd.: Engaged in diversified services with significant brand value and intangible assets. The Tribunal found it incomparable due to its high revenue and brand value.

- KALS Information Systems Ltd. (Seg.): Engaged in software product development with incorrect segmental information. The Tribunal found it functionally dissimilar.

- L&T Infotech Ltd.: Significant brand value and revenue from on-site software services. The Tribunal found it functionally dissimilar and noted its RPT was 18.66%.

- Persistent Systems Ltd.: Derived income from software services and products without segmental information. The Tribunal found it functionally dissimilar and noted its RPT was 15.47%.

- Sasken Communication Technology Ltd.: Earned revenue from software services, products, and other services without segmental information. The Tribunal found it functionally dissimilar.

- Tata Elxsi Ltd.: Engaged in diversified activities within the software development segment. The Tribunal found it functionally dissimilar.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of these companies from the set of comparables.

4. Exclusion of Telecommunication and Travelling Expenses from Export Turnover:
The assessee argued that telecommunication and travelling expenses should not be excluded from export turnover as they were not charged to the AE and were not part of the export turnover. The Tribunal referred to the assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and other decisions, noting that such expenses should not be excluded if they were not part of the export turnover. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify this aspect and decide accordingly.

5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B & 234C:
The assessee challenged the levy of interest under Sections 234B & 234C, arguing that the conditions for levying such interest did not exist. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue within the provided text.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal addressed the issues of transfer pricing adjustment, turnover and RPT filters, functional dissimilarity of comparables, and exclusion of expenses from export turnover. It directed the exclusion of certain companies from the set of comparables based on functional dissimilarity and RPT thresholds and remanded the issue of telecommunication and travelling expenses to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Tribunal's decisions were guided by precedents and the specific facts of the case.

---