2019 (5) TMI 1967 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds Dispute Resolution Panel's decision on comparables, dismisses Revenue's appeal.

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 7, Pune Versus Xpanxion International Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the Dispute Resolution Panel's decision to include Maveric Systems Ltd. in the final list of comparables, dismissing the Revenue's ... TP Adjustment - comparable selection - Maveric Systems Ltd. inclusion/eclusuion - HELD THAT:- We find that the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. MSC Software Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (10) TMI 1433 - ITAT PUNE] had decided similar issue of functional comparability of Maveric Systems Ltd. to the concern engaged in providing software development services. After analyzing the functionality of said concern and in turn, relying on the other decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal, Maveric Systems Ltd. was found to be functionally comparable to the concern providing software development services. Following the same parity of reasoning, we uphold the order of DRP in this regard and dismiss grounds of appeal raised by Revenue. n view of the concession of learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that in case Maveric Systems Ltd. is included in the final list of comparables, then the margins of assessee would be within +/- 5% mean margins of comparables, we do not adjudicate ground of appeal No.4 raised by Revenue. Issues:1. Dispute regarding the inclusion of Maveric Systems Ltd. in the final list of comparables.2. Dispute regarding the inclusion of Silverline Technologies Ltd. in the final list of comparables.3. Delay in filing the appeal by Revenue authorities.Issue 1: Inclusion of Maveric Systems Ltd. in the final list of comparables:The Revenue contested the inclusion of Maveric Systems Ltd. in the final list of comparables by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee argued that Maveric Systems Ltd. was not functionally comparable as it was engaged in development and testing, unlike the software development services provided by the assessee. The Tribunal examined the functional activities of Maveric Systems Ltd. and noted that it was involved solely in software development services, as evidenced by its annual report. The DRP also highlighted that certain expenses mentioned in the financial statements did not alter the functional profile of the company, which was clearly stated in the Schedule to the Profit and Loss Account and Notes to Accounts. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision, dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal against the inclusion of Maveric Systems Ltd. in the final list of comparables.Issue 2: Inclusion of Silverline Technologies Ltd. in the final list of comparables:The Revenue raised a concern regarding the inclusion of Silverline Technologies Ltd. in the final list of comparables by the DRP. However, due to the concession made by the Authorized Representative for the assessee that including Maveric Systems Ltd. would align the margins of the assessee within +/- 5% of the mean margins of comparables, the Tribunal did not delve into this issue. As a result, the issue raised by the Revenue and the objections raised by the assessee in Cross Objections were deemed academic and dismissed.Issue 3: Delay in filing the appeal:The Revenue authorities filed an appeal after a delay of 14 days and sought condonation of the delay. The Tribunal accepted the reasons provided for the delay and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The revised grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue were considered, and the appeal was heard and disposed of by the Tribunal.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee. The issues regarding the inclusion of Maveric Systems Ltd. and Silverline Technologies Ltd. in the final list of comparables were addressed, with the Tribunal upholding the DRP's decision in the case of Maveric Systems Ltd. based on functional comparability. The delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue authorities was condoned, and the revised grounds of appeal were considered in the final judgment delivered on May 14, 2019.