Transfer pricing appeal remitted for fresh consideration emphasizing consistent ALP determination criteria.

The appeal involved transfer pricing adjustments under the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) in Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS). The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, remitting several issues to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for fresh consideration. It emphasized the importance of consistent application of filters and comparability criteria for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on January 31, 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments
2. Inclusion and Exclusion of Comparable Companies
3. Application of Filters for Comparability Analysis
4. Interest under Section 234B and 234D of the Income-tax Act

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments:
The appeal was directed against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contested the determination of an adjustment under section 92CA to the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) regarding Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had rejected the TP documentation maintained by the assessee, invoking sub-section (3) of section 92C, and conducted a fresh comparability analysis by introducing various filters. The final assessment order included a TP adjustment of INR 30,281,283.

2. Inclusion and Exclusion of Comparable Companies:
- R Systems International Ltd.: The assessee argued that R Systems International Ltd. was functionally comparable and passed all filters applied in the TP documentation. However, the lower authorities rejected it due to a different accounting period. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, referencing the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Mercer Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd., stating that different accounting periods do not affect comparability if data relating to the financial year is available. The issue was remitted to the TPO for fresh consideration.

- Accentia Technologies Limited: The assessee contended that Accentia Technologies Ltd. was not comparable due to its involvement in software product development and IT-enabled services, lack of segmental data, and possession of intangibles. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's argument and directed the TPO to exclude Accentia Technologies Ltd. from the comparables.

- Fortune Infotech Limited: The assessee argued that Fortune Infotech Ltd. used unique technology and technical know-how, making it non-comparable. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision in Outsource Partners International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and directed the TPO to exclude Fortune Infotech Ltd. from the comparables.

- Jeevan Scientific Technology Limited: The assessee raised an additional ground, arguing that Jeevan Scientific Technology Ltd. failed the service income filter of 75% applied by the TPO. The Tribunal admitted this ground and remitted the issue to the TPO for fresh consideration, directing that if ICRA Online Ltd. was excluded on similar grounds, Jeevan Scientific Technology Ltd. should also be excluded.

3. Application of Filters for Comparability Analysis:
The assessee contested various filters applied by the TPO, including the employee cost filter, export earning filter, and the use of different financial year ending filter. The Tribunal addressed these issues by remitting specific cases back to the TPO for fresh consideration, ensuring that the filters were applied consistently and appropriately.

4. Interest under Section 234B and 234D of the Income-tax Act:
The assessee contested the levy of interest under section 234B and 234D, amounting to INR 4,726,839 and INR 165,275, respectively. The Tribunal noted that these interests are consequential and mandatory, to be computed accordingly.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remitted to the TPO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistent application of filters and comparability criteria, ensuring that the data used for ALP determination is reliable and appropriate. The judgment was pronounced on January 31, 2019.

---