2022 (4) TMI 1487 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows appeal, excludes comparables, recalculates adjustments, upholds exclusion of charges for deduction.

M/s. Meritor CVS India (P) Ltd., Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4 (1) (3), Bangalore.

The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables and the recomputation of working capital ... TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- We direct the Ld.AO/TPO to exclude ICRA Techno Analytics as directed by the DRP from the finalist. Application of turnover filter - Comparables sought for exclusion deserves to be upheld on failure to fulfil turnover filter. We accordingly direct the Ld.AO/TPO to exclude Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Mindtree Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd. from the finalist. Working capital adjustment - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessee do not bear any working capital risk as compared to the comparables. If at all any working capital adjustment is to be made in such a situation, it would be a positive working capital adjustment to bring the comparables on par with assessee. We therefore, direct Ld.AO/TPO to recompute working capital adjustment in actuals to the selected comparables to make them comparable with assessee. Deduction u/s 10A - exclusion of telecommunication expenses and insurance charges for rending technical servies outside India, both from the export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 10A - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute before us that in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that charges/expenses relating to telecommunication, and expenses in connection with rendering technical services outside India, should be excluded both from export turnover and total turnover while computing deduction u/s.10A i.e., whatever is removed from the numerator should also be excluded from the denominator while working total turnover and export turnover for allowing deduction u/s.10A of the Act. The aforesaid decision of the jurisdictional High Court has been upheld by case of CIT v, HCL Technologies Ltd.[2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] - we are of the view that the telecommunication charges and insurance charges should be excluded both from the export turnover as well as total turnover while computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act. Issues Involved:1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) and adjustments made thereon.2. Natural justice in the proceedings.3. Procedural grounds.4. Other additions made in the assessment consequent to findings of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).Analysis of Judgment:1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) and Adjustments Made Thereon:- Exclusion of ICRA Techno Analytics: The assessee sought the exclusion of ICRA Techno Analytics from the list of comparables. The DRP had directed its exclusion, but the Ld.AO/TPO did not follow this directive. The Tribunal directed the Ld.AO/TPO to exclude ICRA Techno Analytics as per the DRP's directions.- Exclusion of Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, and Mindtree Ltd: The assessee argued that these companies, with turnovers significantly higher than its own, should not be considered comparables. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing the decision in Tavant Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, which emphasized the importance of turnover filters in comparability analysis. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of these companies from the list of comparables.- Granting of Working Capital Adjustment: The assessee sought directions for granting a working capital adjustment. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not bear any working capital risk compared to the comparables and directed the Ld.AO/TPO to recompute the working capital adjustment to make the comparables on par with the assessee.2. Natural Justice in the Proceedings:- The assessee raised multiple grounds related to natural justice, asserting that the TPO and DRP did not consider all submissions and objections. However, these grounds were dismissed as not pressed, with liberty granted to the assessee to raise these issues under appropriate circumstances.3. Procedural Grounds:- The assessee argued procedural errors, including the necessity and expediency of referring the determination of ALP to the TPO and the lack of demonstration of any motive of tax evasion. These grounds were also dismissed as not pressed.4. Other Additions Made in the Assessment Consequent to Findings of the DRP:- Exclusion of Telecommunication and Insurance Charges: The assessee contested the reduction of telecommunication expenses and insurance charges from the export turnover while computing the eligible deduction under section 10AA of the Act. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd., which upheld that such expenses should be excluded both from the export turnover and total turnover while computing deductions under section 10A of the Act. Consequently, this ground raised by the assessee was allowed.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables and the recomputation of working capital adjustments. Additionally, it upheld the exclusion of telecommunication and insurance charges from both the export turnover and total turnover for computing deductions under section 10A of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed several grounds as not pressed but granted liberty to the assessee to raise these issues in appropriate circumstances.