TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows Assessee's appeal, orders re-examination on comparable companies & permits education cess deduction.</h1> <h3>M/s. Aptean India Private Limited, (formerly Aptean Software India Pvt. Ltd.,) Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1 (1) (1), Bengaluru.</h3> M/s. Aptean India Private Limited, (formerly Aptean Software India Pvt. Ltd.,) Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1 (1) (1), Bengaluru. ... Issues Involved:1. Determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) for Software Development Services (SWD).2. Exclusion of certain comparable companies based on turnover filter.3. Exclusion of Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. as a comparable.4. Exclusion of CG Vak Software Exports Ltd. as a comparable.5. Inclusion of ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. as a comparable.6. Negative working capital adjustment.7. Deduction of education cess and secondary and higher education cess under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) for Software Development Services (SWD):The Assessee, engaged in providing SWD services to its wholly owned holding company (an Associated Enterprise under Sec.92-A of the Act), filed a Transfer Pricing Study (TP Study) using the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) and selected Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). The Assessee's OP/OC was 15%, with operating income of Rs. 29,13,01,402 and operating cost of Rs. 24,55,95,246. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) but reworked the PLI at 20.90% using a set of 7 comparable companies, resulting in an addition to total income of Rs. 3,49,43,550 due to adjustment to ALP.2. Exclusion of Certain Comparable Companies Based on Turnover Filter:The Assessee sought exclusion of 5 companies with turnovers exceeding Rs. 200 crores, arguing that high turnover companies are not comparable to the Assessee with a turnover of Rs. 29.13 crores. The Tribunal noted that high turnover can materially affect profit margins and upheld the exclusion of these companies, referencing decisions such as Dell International Services India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT and Autodesk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, which support the exclusion of high turnover companies from the list of comparables.3. Exclusion of Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. as a Comparable:The Assessee argued for the exclusion of Akshay Software Technologies Ltd., citing functional differences and lack of segmental data. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Aptean India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, and remanded the issue to the TPO for fresh consideration, directing the TPO to analyze the functions performed by Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. and compare them with the Assessee.4. Exclusion of CG Vak Software Exports Ltd. as a Comparable:The Assessee sought exclusion of CG Vak Software Exports Ltd. due to functional differences and lack of segmental data. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Tavant Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, where CG Vak Software Exports Ltd. was excluded for similar reasons. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of CG Vak Software Exports Ltd. from the list of comparable companies.5. Inclusion of ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. as a Comparable:The Tribunal remanded the issue of including ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. to the TPO for fresh consideration, referencing the Assessee’s own case in Assessment Year 2010-11. The Tribunal noted that ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. had diversified activities and lacked segmental results, which warranted re-examination of its comparability.6. Negative Working Capital Adjustment:The Assessee contested the TPO's negative working capital adjustment, arguing that it did not bear any working capital risk as a captive service provider. The Tribunal noted that the TPO did not provide reasons for adopting a negative working capital adjustment and remanded the issue for re-examination, referencing decisions such as Lam Research India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT and Software AG Bangalore Technologies (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, which held that negative working capital adjustment should not be made for captive service providers.7. Deduction of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess under Section 37(1):The Assessee argued that education cess and secondary and higher education cess should be deductible as business expenditure under section 37(1). The Tribunal admitted this additional ground, referencing decisions such as Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax and ITC Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that these cesses are deductible. The Tribunal allowed the additional ground of appeal.Conclusion:The appeal by the Assessee was partly allowed, with directions for re-examination on specific issues and exclusions/inclusions of certain comparable companies based on turnover and functional differences. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction of education cess and secondary and higher education cess as business expenditure under section 37(1).
TaxTMI 