ITAT Directs Exclusion of Functionally Dissimilar Comparables, Orders Reassessment of Goodwill Depreciation Claims.

ST-Ericcson India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-24 (2), New Delhi.

ST-Ericcson India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-24 (2), New Delhi. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
2. Treatment of Software Expenses
3. Treatment of Training Expenses
4. Depreciation on Goodwill
5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D
6. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c)

Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The main issue was the upward adjustment of Rs. 26,32,08,740/- proposed by the TPO for the international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The assessee argued against the inclusion and exclusion of certain comparable companies used by the TPO to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP).

- Inclusion of Comparables: The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the inclusion of certain entities in the list of appropriate comparables. The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude companies like Persistent Systems Ltd., Thirdware Solutions Ltd., Wipro Technology Services Ltd., E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., Acropetal Technologies Ltd., E-Infochips Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Persistent Systems and Solutions Ltd., Sankhya Infotech Ltd., and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. from the list of comparables due to functional dissimilarities, different business models, and other factors.

- Exclusion of Comparables: The Tribunal also directed the TPO to include companies like R. Systems International Ltd., CG VAK Software & Exports Ltd., CAT Technologies Ltd., Thinksoft Global Services Ltd., Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd., and Maveric Systems Ltd. as comparables after verifying their financial data and ensuring they meet the criteria for comparability.

- Risk Adjustment: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for risk adjustment, directing the TPO to provide risk adjustment to the net margin of the comparables to bring them at par with the assessee.

2. Treatment of Software Expenses:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether software expenses amounting to Rs. 69,45,581/- should be treated as capital expenditure. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, holding that expenses on time-based software licenses are revenue in nature and should not be capitalized. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to treat these expenses as revenue expenditure.

3. Treatment of Training Expenses:
The Tribunal examined the treatment of training expenses amounting to Rs. 9,85,574/-. Following its previous decisions for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the Tribunal held that such expenses are revenue in nature and should not be capitalized. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the training expenses as revenue expenditure.

4. Depreciation on Goodwill:
The Tribunal dealt with the assessee's claim for depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs. 2,45,01,457/-. The Tribunal noted that the DRP had rejected the claim based on the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. However, following its earlier decision for assessment year 2010-11, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and decision, providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D:
The Tribunal did not press grounds related to the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D, and these grounds were dismissed as not pressed.

6. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal did not press the ground related to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), and this ground was dismissed as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the Assessing Officer/TPO to re-examine certain issues and comparables based on the Tribunal's findings and previous decisions. The decision emphasized the need for functional comparability and appropriate adjustments to ensure the ALP determination aligns with the assessee's business model and risk profile.