2016 (7) TMI 1540 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Tax Deduction, Transfer Pricing, and Technical Services

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle–2 (3), Mumbai Versus M/s. Trinity Computer Processing (I) Pvt. Ltd., [Now known as Willis Processing Services (I) Pvt. Ltd.]

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle–2 (3), Mumbai Versus M/s. Trinity Computer Processing (I) Pvt. Ltd., [Now known as Willis Processing Services ... Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment.3. Exclusion of Comparables.4. Payment for Technical Services.5. Additional Issues/ Grounds under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act:The Department challenged the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 15.43 lakh on account of disallowance under Section 40(a)(i). The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the payment made to Equant Network Services Ltd., considering it as 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services,' which required tax deduction at source. The Commissioner (Appeals) followed the precedent set in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2006-07, where it was held that such payments do not constitute 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services.' The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, referencing prior Tribunal decisions and a similar case (Bharti Airtel Ltd. v/s ITO), concluding that the payments were not subject to tax deduction at source.2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:The Department raised issues regarding the deletion of additions made on account of transfer pricing adjustments. The first issue was the exclusion of two comparables, Vishal Technologies Ltd. and Cepha Imaging Pvt. Ltd., by the Commissioner (Appeals).Vishal Information Technologies Ltd.:The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. was not a suitable comparable due to its low employee cost (0.95% of turnover), indicating it outsources ITES activities, unlike the assessee.Cepha Imaging Pvt. Ltd.:The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Cepha Imaging Pvt. Ltd., noting its involvement in software development and production of spares, making it functionally different from the assessee. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions where this company was excluded as a comparable for ITES service providers.3. Payment for Technical Services:The Department contested the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the payment made by the assessee to its Associated Enterprise (A.E.) for technical services. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had disallowed the payment due to inadequate documentation. The Commissioner (Appeals) reasoned that since the assessee operates on a cost-plus model with a 10% markup, disallowing the cost without adjusting the income was unjustified. The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals)'s conclusion logical and upheld the decision.4. Additional Issues/ Grounds under Rule 27:The assessee filed an application under Rule 27 to raise additional issues. The Tribunal admitted the application, referencing relevant judicial precedents.Airline Financial Support Services India Ltd.:The assessee argued that this company should be excluded as a comparable due to its Related Party Transactions (RPT) exceeding 25%. The Tribunal agreed, referencing decisions where companies with high RPTs were excluded as comparables.Saffron Global Ltd.:The assessee initially objected to this company as a comparable but later conceded that excluding Airline Financial Support Services India Ltd. brought the margin within the acceptable range, making further adjudication unnecessary.Risk Adjustment:The assessee raised the issue of risk adjustment but, considering the relief already granted, the Tribunal deemed it academic and chose not to adjudicate it, leaving the option open for future cases.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee under Rule 27 to the extent indicated. The order was pronounced in the open court on 29.07.2016.