Appeal partly allowed, remanded for re-examination on comparables, interest rates.

The appeal was partly allowed with directions for re-examination and fresh consideration on specific issues, particularly regarding the inclusion/exclusion of comparables and the determination of interest rates for TP adjustments. The Tribunal remanded certain matters back to the TPO and DRP for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of functional dissimilarities and proper application of rates in line with previous rulings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the orders passed by the AO, TPO, and DRP.
2. Rejection of the arm’s length price for interest on loans to AE.
3. Treatment of interest payable on bank overdraft as internal comparable.
4. Non-following of jurisdictional ITAT ruling for AY 2008-09.
5. Rejection of documentation for accounting support services segment.
6. Rejection of comparable companies for accounting support services segment.
7. Selection of functionally different comparable companies.
8. Exclusion of a comparable not disputed by either party.
9. General nature of grounds.
10. Claim for MAT credit.
11. Inclusion/Exclusion of comparables in ITES segment.
12. TP adjustment towards interest received.
13. Charge of interest u/ss 234B and 234C of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Orders:
The assessee contended that the orders passed by the AO, TPO, and DRP were bad in law and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, this ground was general in nature and no specific adjudication was called for.

2. Rejection of Arm’s Length Price:
The TPO rejected the arm’s length price determined by the assessee for interest receivable on loans to its AE, asserting that even if the loans were granted without charging any interest, they would comply with the arm’s length standard. The DRP confirmed the TPO's order.

3. Treatment of Bank Overdraft Interest:
The DRP erred in treating the interest payable on the bank overdraft as an internal comparable for determining the arm’s length nature of interest receivable on loans provided to the AE. The DRP did not follow the jurisdictional ITAT ruling for AY 2008-09 in the appellant’s own case, which involved similar facts.

4. Non-following of Jurisdictional ITAT Ruling:
The DRP did not adhere to the jurisdictional ITAT ruling for AY 2008-09 in the appellant’s own case, which involved similar facts.

5. Rejection of Documentation:
The TPO rejected the documentation maintained by the appellant for the accounting support services segment, stating that the information or data used in computation of the arm’s length price was not reliable or correct. The DRP confirmed the TPO's order.

6. Rejection of Comparable Companies:
The TPO rejected the comparable companies selected by the appellant for the accounting support services segment. The DRP confirmed the TPO's order.

7. Selection of Functionally Different Comparable Companies:
The DRP and the AO erred in confirming the TPO's order, which had selected certain comparable companies that were functionally different from the appellant.

8. Exclusion of a Comparable:
The DRP directed the TPO to exclude a comparable which had not been disputed either by the appellant or the TPO.

9. General Nature of Grounds:
Grounds 1 and 9 were general in nature and did not call for specific adjudication.

10. Claim for MAT Credit:
The appellant’s claim for MAT credit was rendered infructuous as the grievance was addressed by the AO’s order u/s 154 of the Act dated 18/4/2017.

11. Inclusion/Exclusion of Comparables in ITES Segment:
The assessee sought exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd., TCS e-Serve Ltd., and BNR Udyog Ltd., and inclusion of Jindal Intellicom Ltd. The Tribunal held:
- Infosys BPO Ltd.: Excluded due to functional dissimilarity, brand value, and economies of scale.
- TCS e-Serve Ltd.: Remanded to TPO for fresh consideration to determine if conditions for exclusion still prevail.
- BNR Udyog Ltd.: Remanded to TPO to determine RPT expenses pertaining to the medical transcription segment.
- Jindal Intellicom Ltd.: Remanded to DRP for reconsideration, ensuring both TPO and assessee are heard.

12. TP Adjustment Towards Interest Received:
The TPO proposed an adjustment using a 14.47% rate instead of the 10% applied by the assessee. The DRP directed the use of the bank overdraft interest rate. The Tribunal held that LIBOR should be applied, following the decision in the assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09.

13. Charge of Interest u/ss 234B and 234C:
The charging of interest u/ss 234B and 234C is consequential and mandatory. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest while giving effect to the order.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with directions for re-examination and fresh consideration on specific issues, particularly regarding the inclusion/exclusion of comparables and the determination of interest rates for TP adjustments.

---