TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Transfer Pricing Appeal: Comparables excluded, remand on section 14A disallowance</h1> <h3>iNautix Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle-2 (2), Chennai</h3> iNautix Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle-2 (2), Chennai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Incorrect TP Adjustment2. Erroneous Comparability Analysis3. Application of Invalid Filters4. Adoption of Functionally Dissimilar Comparables5. Non-inclusion of Valid Comparables6. Use of Single Year Data7. Disallowance under Section 14ADetailed Analysis:1. Incorrect TP Adjustment:The assessee challenged the adjustment of INR 2,82,84,751 made to the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of its international transactions related to the provision of Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS) with its Associated Enterprise (AE). The adjustment was confirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).2. Erroneous Comparability Analysis:The assessee argued that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept the economic analysis conducted by the assessee, which was in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Income Tax Rules, 1962. The TPO conducted a fresh economic analysis without providing cogent reasons for the same.3. Application of Invalid Filters:The TPO/AO and the DRP were alleged to have applied arbitrary quantitative and qualitative filters for the selection of comparables in the ITeS segment.4. Adoption of Functionally Dissimilar Comparables:The TPO/AO and the DRP included functionally dissimilar companies for determining the ALP under section 92C of the Act. The assessee specifically challenged the inclusion of certain comparables such as Coral Hub Ltd. and Jeevan Scientific Technologies Ltd., arguing that these companies were functionally different from the assessee's business.5. Non-inclusion of Valid Comparables:The assessee contended that the TPO/AO and the DRP did not include appropriate comparable companies selected by the assessee without providing valid reasons.6. Use of Single Year Data:The TPO/AO and the DRP used only the financial year (FY) 2009-10 data to determine the arm's length margin/price, whereas the assessee used multiple year data covering the subject year and two prior years for its analysis.7. Disallowance under Section 14A:The assessee raised an issue regarding the disallowance under section 14A, arguing that the DRP did not consider the documents submitted by the assessee regarding the computation of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D.Judgment Analysis:Inclusion/Exclusion of Comparables (Ground Nos. 5 & 6):The Tribunal focused on grounds 5 and 6, which pertained to the inclusion or exclusion of certain comparable companies while determining the ALP. The TPO initially selected 19 comparables for the Software Development Services (SDS) segment and 7 comparables for the ITeS segment. The assessee challenged the inclusion of several companies, arguing that they were functionally dissimilar.The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding Coral Hub Ltd. and Jeevan Scientific Technologies Ltd., stating that these companies were functionally different from the assessee. Coral Hub Ltd. was involved in data conversion and ePublishing services, while Jeevan Scientific Technologies Ltd. provided clinical research services. The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude these companies from the comparables.Non-inclusion of Microgenetics Systems Ltd.:The assessee argued for the inclusion of Microgenetics Systems Ltd. as a comparable. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that the turnover of Microgenetics Systems Ltd. was significantly lower than that of the assessee, making it an inappropriate comparable.Disallowance under Section 14A:The assessee contended that the DRP did not consider the documents submitted regarding the disallowance under section 14A. The Tribunal directed the DRP to re-examine the documents and provide appropriate directions to the TPO.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the exclusion of certain comparables and remanding the issue of disallowance under section 14A to the DRP for reconsideration. The order was pronounced on August 24, 2016, in Chennai.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
