Appeal allowed for re-computation of transfer pricing adjustments with specific directions

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with various issues remitted back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for re-computation. The Tribunal directed the TPO to adjust the transfer price for Software Development (SWD) and Information Technology enabled services (ITeS) segments, compute correct margins for comparable companies, and address working capital adjustments. Specific comparable companies were either included or excluded in the SWD and ITeS segments based on the Tribunal's directions. The final order was required to conform with the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation.
2. Adjustment to the transfer price for Software Development services (SWD) & Information Technology enabled services (ITeS) segments.
3. Working Capital Adjustment.
4. Risk Adjustment.
5. Computation of incorrect margin for various comparable companies.
6. Inclusion/Exclusion of specific comparable companies in the SWD segment.
7. Inclusion/Exclusion of specific comparable companies in the ITeS segment.
8. Non-conformity of the Final Order with the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Transfer Pricing (TP) Documentation:
The Tribunal noted that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the rejection of the TP documentation by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The assessee argued that the comparability analysis in the TP documentation was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules, and the rejection was erroneous.

2. Adjustment to the Transfer Price for SWD & ITeS Segments:
The Tribunal examined the grounds related to the adjustment to the transfer price for the SWD and ITeS segments. The assessee contended that the TPO and AO, following the DRP's directions, erred in rejecting companies functionally akin to the assessee while performing the comparability analysis. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO/TPO for re-computation of the correct margin after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

3. Working Capital Adjustment:
The Tribunal discussed the issue of working capital adjustment in detail, referencing the case of Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and other judgments. It was held that the net profit margin arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions should be adjusted to account for differences in working capital. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO/TPO to compute the working capital adjustment after necessary examination and hearing the assessee.

4. Risk Adjustment:
The Tribunal noted that the ground related to risk adjustment was not pressed by the assessee and hence dismissed it as not pressed.

5. Computation of Incorrect Margin for Various Comparable Companies:
The assessee argued that the AO/TPO computed incorrect margins for various comparables in both SWD and ITeS segments. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO/TPO for re-computation of the correct margin after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

6. Inclusion/Exclusion of Specific Comparable Companies in the SWD Segment:
The Tribunal addressed the inclusion/exclusion of several comparable companies in the SWD segment:
- Tata Elxsi Ltd.: The Tribunal found no infirmity in including Tata Elxsi Ltd. in the list of comparables.
- Rheal Software P. Ltd.: Not pressed by the assessee, hence dismissed.
- Mind Tree Ltd.: Directed the AO/TPO to exclude this company from the list of comparables due to significant onsite revenue and other factors.
- Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd.: Directed the AO/TPO to exclude this company from the list of comparables.
- R.S. Software (India) Ltd.: Directed the AO/TPO to exclude this company due to significant onsite expenses.
- Infobeans Technologies Ltd.: Not pressed by the assessee, hence dismissed.
- Persistent Systems Ltd.: Remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration due to high RPT to sales ratio.
- Nihilent Technologies Ltd.: Remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration due to high onsite revenue.
- Aspire Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.: Remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration due to high onsite revenue.
- Inteq Software Pvt. Ltd.: Not pressed by the assessee, hence dismissed.
- Infosys Ltd.: Directed the AO/TPO to exclude this company from the list of comparables.
- Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd.: Not pressed by the assessee, hence dismissed.
- Akshay Software Technologies Ltd.: Not pressed by the assessee, hence dismissed.
- Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.: Directed the AO/TPO to include this company as per DRP's directions.
- I2T2 India Pvt. Ltd.: Directed the AO/TPO to include this company as comparable.
- Cigniti Technologies Ltd.: Directed the AO/TPO to follow DRP's order and include this company.
- Bhilwara Infotechnology Ltd., Nucleus Software Exports Ltd., Cybercom Datamatics Information Solutions Ltd., Consilient Technologies Pvt. Ltd.: Directed the AO/TPO to pass the consequent orders in conformity with the DRP's directions.

7. Inclusion/Exclusion of Specific Comparable Companies in the ITeS Segment:
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to pass the final order in conformity with the DRP's directions regarding the inclusion/exclusion of specific comparable companies in the ITeS segment.

8. Non-Conformity of the Final Order with the Directions Issued by the DRP:
The Tribunal noted that the final order passed by the AO/TPO was not in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to pass the final order in conformity with the DRP's directions and rectify any inadvertent lapses.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remitted back to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration and re-computation in accordance with the Tribunal's directions and after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

---