Appeal success: Oracle charges in cost base, Agrima excluded, tax credit granted. Times Innovative Media rejected.

The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal permitted the inclusion of Oracle implementation charges in the cost base, directed the exclusion of Agrima Consultants International Ltd. from the list of comparables, and instructed the Assessing Officer to verify and grant the tax credit. However, the Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Times Innovative Media Ltd. as a comparable, rejected the use of multiple year data, and denied functional risk adjustments.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer pricing adjustment for reimbursement of Oracle implementation charges.
2. Transfer pricing adjustment for business support services and marketing support services.
3. Rejection of Times Innovative Media Ltd. as a comparable.
4. Use of multiple year data for transfer pricing analysis.
5. Functional, Asset, and Risk (FAR) profile and risk adjustments.
6. Tax credit of advance tax paid.
7. Inclusion of Agrima Consultants International Ltd. as a comparable.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Reimbursement of Oracle Implementation Charges:
The assessee paid INR 2.70 crores to its Associated Enterprise (AE) for Oracle implementation charges, out of which INR 1.04 crores was disallowed as pre-operative expenses. The TPO and CIT(A) determined the arm's length price (ALP) of the remaining INR 1.66 crores as Nil, arguing that the assessee failed to establish receipt of services. The Tribunal held that the Oracle system was essential for providing back office accounting services and that the costs were justified as part of the APSSC segment. The Tribunal referenced Eaton Fluid Power Ltd. Vs. ACIT, emphasizing that the TPO cannot question the business model or necessity of services availed by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim, rejecting the adjustment of INR 1.66 crores.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Business Support Services and Marketing Support Services:
The TPO made adjustments of INR 13,76,666 and INR 8,88,752 for business support services and marketing support services, respectively. The CIT(A) upheld these adjustments, rejecting the use of multiple year data and excluding Times Innovative Media Ltd. as a comparable. The Tribunal found no merit in the exclusion of Times Innovative Media Ltd. and held that the nature of activities performed by the assessee was different from those of Times Innovative Media Ltd., which was engaged in event management. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Times Innovative Media Ltd. and dismissed the assessee's plea.

3. Rejection of Times Innovative Media Ltd. as a Comparable:
The TPO and CIT(A) excluded Times Innovative Media Ltd. from the list of comparables, arguing it was functionally different as it was engaged in event management. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the functions performed by Times Innovative Media Ltd. were different from the marketing support services provided by the assessee. Therefore, the exclusion was upheld.

4. Use of Multiple Year Data for Transfer Pricing Analysis:
The CIT(A) rejected the use of multiple year data for transfer pricing analysis, adhering to Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which mandates the use of data for the contemporaneous period. The Tribunal did not find any merit in the assessee's plea for using multiple year data and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

5. Functional, Asset, and Risk (FAR) Profile and Risk Adjustments:
The CIT(A) did not allow functional risk adjustments, holding that the assessee was not a risk-free entity. The Tribunal upheld this view, finding no merit in the assessee's argument for risk adjustments based on its FAR profile.

6. Tax Credit of Advance Tax Paid:
The assessee claimed that credit for advance tax paid of INR 9 lakhs was not granted. The CIT(A) directed the assessee to file a rectification application under section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to dispose of the rectification application after verifying the claim, thus allowing this ground of appeal.

7. Inclusion of Agrima Consultants International Ltd. as a Comparable:
The assessee raised an additional ground of appeal for excluding Agrima Consultants International Ltd., arguing it was functionally not comparable as it provided financial consultancy. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground, referencing the decision in Dover India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, and directed the TPO to exclude Agrima Consultants International Ltd. from the list of comparables for both marketing and business support services segments.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal allowed the inclusion of Oracle implementation charges in the cost base, directed the exclusion of Agrima Consultants International Ltd. from the list of comparables, and ordered the Assessing Officer to verify and grant the tax credit. However, the Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Times Innovative Media Ltd. and the rejection of multiple year data and risk adjustments.

---