Tribunal grants partial relief in transfer pricing case, emphasizes functional comparability and risk adjustment

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, granting partial relief by excluding certain companies as comparables and allowing risk adjustment for software development services and ITES. Several companies were remitted back to the CIT(A) for further analysis, emphasizing functional comparability and proper application of filters in transfer pricing cases. The Tribunal directed the TPO to calculate working capital adjustment without any cap and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on risk adjustment, stressing the assessee's responsibility to provide necessary details. The revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Arms length price in respect of software development services and ITES.
2. Inclusion and exclusion of certain companies as comparables.
3. Application of turnover filter in the selection of comparables.
4. Granting of adequate working capital adjustment.
5. Determination of MAT credit eligibility.
6. Benefit of risk adjustment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Arms Length Price in Software Development Services and ITES:
The assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary of Misys India Holding Ltd., UK, engaged in software development services, ITES, and marketing support services to its AEs, reported its financial results and international transactions. The TPO accepted the sales support service segment at arms length but disputed the software development services and ITES. The TPO proposed an adjustment u/s. 92CA of Rs. 14,75,07,706/- for software development services and Rs. 51,52,442/- for ITES. The CIT(A) granted partial relief by excluding certain companies from the set of comparables and allowing risk adjustment.

2. Inclusion and Exclusion of Certain Companies as Comparables:
- Bodhtree Consulting Ltd.: Excluded due to fluctuating and abnormal profit margins, and different accounting principles. Supported by decisions in M/s. Infinera India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO and VMware Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT.
- Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.: Excluded due to functional dissimilarity, involvement in software product development, and owning intangibles. Supported by decisions in VMware Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and Novell Software Development India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT.
- Persistent Systems Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., and Infosys Ltd.: Remitted back to CIT(A) for FAR analysis as they were excluded by applying the turnover filter without examining functional dissimilarity.
- FCS Software Solutions Ltd. and Thinksoft Global Services Ltd.: Included as comparables, supported by decisions in VMware Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT.
- Infosys BPO Ltd. and Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd.: Remitted back to CIT(A) for FAR analysis without being influenced by the turnover filter.
- Accentia Technologies Ltd., Cosmic Global Ltd., and Eclerx Services Ltd.: Excluded due to functional dissimilarity and extraordinary events, supported by decisions in e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and Lam Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT.

3. Application of Turnover Filter in the Selection of Comparables:
The CIT(A) applied a turnover filter of 1 to 500 Crores, excluding certain companies. However, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to CIT(A) for examining the impact of turnover on profit margins and price charged by comparables, following the judgment in Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT.

4. Granting of Adequate Working Capital Adjustment:
The Tribunal directed the TPO to calculate the working capital adjustment on an actual basis without any cap, as the law entitles the assessee to working capital adjustment in accordance with the Act and Rules.

5. Determination of MAT Credit Eligibility:
The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's arguments on errors in the assessment order regarding MAT credit eligibility but did not determine the eligible amount. The Tribunal did not provide further details on this issue.

6. Benefit of Risk Adjustment:
The CIT(A) directed the TPO to work out the risk adjustment as per prevailing norms, provided the assessee submits all relevant details and computations. The Tribunal upheld this direction, emphasizing the onus on the assessee to provide necessary details.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and remitted several issues back to the CIT(A) for further examination and proper determination. The revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The judgment highlighted the importance of functional comparability, proper application of filters, and adherence to judicial precedents in transfer pricing cases.

---