Tribunal allows appeal, excludes comparables, directs depreciation adjustments, disallows negative working capital adjustments, permits educational cess deduction.

The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the Tribunal. Infosys BPO Limited and TCS E-Serve Limited were excluded from the list of comparables due to functional dissimilarity. The Tribunal directed for depreciation adjustments if varying rates were observed. Negative working capital adjustments were deemed inappropriate for captive service providers. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the deduction of educational cess based on legal precedents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of Infosys BPO Limited and TCS E-Serve Limited from the list of comparables.
2. Depreciation adjustment.
3. Negative working capital adjustment.
4. Deduction of educational cess.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exclusion of Infosys BPO Limited and TCS E-Serve Limited from the List of Comparables:
The Tribunal had remanded the issue to the TPO for exclusion of Infosys BPO Limited and TCS E-Serve Limited. The TPO and DRP held these companies as comparable to the assessee. The assessee argued that these companies are functionally dissimilar. The Tribunal referenced the case of Indecomm Global Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., where Infosys BPO Limited was excluded due to functional incompatibility and ownership of brands, and TCS E-Serve Limited was excluded due to its engagement in high-end KPO services. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to exclude Infosys BPO Limited and TCS E-Serve Limited from the list of comparables, thereby allowing ground 3.

2. Depreciation Adjustment:
The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the TPO to re-examine the rates of depreciation and make reasonable adjustments if the rates differed between the assessee and comparable companies. During remand proceedings, the TPO did not grant any depreciation adjustment, confirmed by the DRP. The assessee contended that the TPO acknowledged the difference in depreciation rates but refused adjustment on extraneous issues. The Tribunal noted that the TPO admitted the depreciation cost difference and directed the AO/TPO to allow depreciation adjustment if they notice different rates. Therefore, ground 4 was allowed for statistical purposes.

3. Negative Working Capital Adjustment:
The issue was raised in the original proceedings but not specifically adjudicated. The TPO computed the working capital adjustment at (-) 1.48%, confirmed by the DRP. The assessee argued that negative working capital adjustment cannot be made for captive service providers, referencing the Tribunal's decisions in ACIT v. e4e Business Solutions India Private Limited and GXS India Technology Centre Private Limited. The Tribunal reiterated that negative working capital adjustment is not appropriate for captive service providers operating on a cost-plus basis. Therefore, ground 7 was allowed.

4. Deduction of Educational Cess:
The additional ground, being purely legal, was admitted based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal referenced the Bangalore Bench's decision in DCIT v. GE BE Private Limited, which allowed educational cess as a deduction. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to allow the educational cess as a deduction, thereby allowing the additional ground.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, with specific directions provided for each issue. The Tribunal's decision ensured that functionally dissimilar companies were excluded from comparables, appropriate depreciation adjustments were made, negative working capital adjustments were not applied to captive service providers, and educational cess was allowed as a deduction.

---