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>ITAT excludes Acropetal Technologies from transfer pricing comparable set due to functional differences and high R&D expenses</h1> <h3>MD Everywhere India (P) Limited Versus The DCIT, Circle-6 (1), New Delhi.</h3> MD Everywhere India (P) Limited Versus The DCIT, Circle-6 (1), New Delhi. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Exclusion and inclusion of comparables in Transfer Pricing (TP) analysis.2. Correct computation of profit margins.3. Application of +/- 5% range as per Section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act.4. Levy of consequential interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Exclusion and Inclusion of Comparables in Transfer Pricing Analysis:The primary issue revolves around the inclusion and exclusion of certain comparables in the TP analysis. The assessee contested the inclusion of Acropetal Technologies Limited, while seeking the inclusion of CG-VAK Software and Export Limited and R System International Limited. The Revenue, on the other hand, challenged the exclusion of Accentia Technologies Limited, Fortune Infotech Limited, Igate Global Solutions Limited, and Infosys BPO Limited.Acropetal Technologies Limited (Segmental):The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that Acropetal Technologies Limited (Segmental) should be excluded due to its functional dissimilarity, significant expenditure on Research and Development, and substantial outsourcing of work. The Tribunal cited various precedents, including the case of JCIT vs. Steria India (P.) Ltd., where Acropetal Technologies Limited (Segmental) was excluded due to these reasons.CG-VAK Software and Export Limited:The Tribunal directed the inclusion of CG-VAK Software and Export Limited, rejecting the Revenue's argument that it should be excluded due to low turnover. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, where it was held that low turnover alone is not a valid reason for exclusion if the company is functionally comparable.R System International Limited:The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO/TPO to extrapolate the financial results for the financial year 2009-10 from the available data, following the principle established in CIT vs. Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Ltd., which held that different financial year ending cannot be the sole basis for rejection if the company is otherwise functionally comparable.Accentia Technologies Limited:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Accentia Technologies Limited, noting its diversified business operations, significant intangible assets, and extraordinary events like acquisitions/amalgamation during the relevant year. The Tribunal cited various precedents, including JCIT vs. Steria India (P.) Ltd., where the exclusion of Accentia Technologies Limited was upheld due to similar reasons.Fortune Infotech Limited:The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Fortune Infotech Limited, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the company had a dissimilar functional profile and unique intangibles. The Tribunal referenced the case of Vertex Customers Services India Private Limited, where Fortune Infotech Limited was excluded for similar reasons.Igate Global Solutions Limited:The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Igate Global Solutions Limited, noting its functional dissimilarity, lack of segmental information, and exceptional year of operation due to amalgamation. The Tribunal cited various decisions, including Vertex Customers Services India Private Limited, supporting the exclusion of Igate Global Solutions Limited.Infosys BPO Limited:The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Infosys BPO Limited, noting its high brand value, significant intangible assets, and substantial expenditure on employee salary and advertising. The Tribunal referenced several decisions, including Steria (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT, where Infosys BPO Limited was excluded due to these factors.2. Correct Computation of Profit Margins:The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to correctly compute the profit margin of Cosmic Global by considering the miscellaneous income as operating income, aligning with the treatment of similar income in the assessee's case.3. Application of +/- 5% Range as per Section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act:The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as it was not raised as a separate ground in the grounds of appeal.4. Levy of Consequential Interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act:The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as it was not raised as a separate ground in the grounds of appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the exclusion of Acropetal Technologies Limited (Segmental) and the inclusion of CG-VAK Software and Export Limited and R System International Limited. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Accentia Technologies Limited, Fortune Infotech Limited, Igate Global Solutions Limited, and Infosys BPO Limited. The Tribunal also directed the correct computation of profit margin for Cosmic Global. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
