ITAT Orders Exclusion of Non-Comparable Entities and Grants Working Capital Adjustment for Accurate ALP Assessment.

The ITAT partially allowed the assessee's appeals for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, directing the exclusion of certain comparables due to functional dissimilarities and ordering the revenue authorities to allow a working capital adjustment. The Tribunal emphasized accurate comparability analysis to ensure the ALP aligns with the arm's length principle.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for software development services.
2. Selection and exclusion of comparable companies.
3. Granting of working capital adjustment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for Software Development Services:
The primary issue in this appeal concerns the determination of the ALP for an international transaction involving software development services rendered by the assessee to its Associated Enterprise (AE). The assessee used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to justify the price received, comparing its Operating Profit to Operating Cost (OP/OC) with that of selected comparable companies. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the comparables chosen by the assessee and selected a new set, resulting in a proposed transfer pricing adjustment. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) retained some of the TPO's comparables and included others suggested by the assessee, but the final assessment still led to an addition to the total income of the assessee.

2. Selection and Exclusion of Comparable Companies:
The Tribunal examined the exclusion of three specific companies: Thirdware Solutions Ltd., Infosys Ltd., and Persistent Systems Ltd. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the case of Kony IT Services P. Ltd., highlighting that these companies were not purely engaged in software development services but also involved in product development, owning significant intangibles, and intellectual property rights (IPRs). The Tribunal concluded that these companies should be excluded from the list of comparables due to their functional dissimilarities with the assessee.

3. Granting of Working Capital Adjustment:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of working capital adjustment, which the TPO and DRP had denied. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of comparability adjustments as per Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. The Tribunal criticized the TPO's reasoning for denying the adjustment, stating that the lack of daily working capital levels and segmental details should not preclude the adjustment. The Tribunal directed the revenue authorities to allow the working capital adjustment based on the calculations provided by the assessee, which had not been disputed.

Separate Judgments for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16:
For Assessment Year 2014-15, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of the three companies and allowed the working capital adjustment, leading to a partial allowance of the assessee's appeal. Similarly, for Assessment Year 2015-16, the Tribunal excluded additional companies like L&T Infotech Ltd. and Mindtree Ltd. based on similar reasoning and directed the revenue authorities to allow the working capital adjustment after affording an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's judgment in both appeals resulted in the partial allowance of the assessee's appeals, directing the revenue authorities to recompute the ALP after excluding certain comparables and allowing the working capital adjustment. The decisions emphasized the need for accurate comparability analysis and adjustments to ensure the determination of ALP aligns with the arm's length principle.

---