Tribunal allows appeal, excludes dissimilar comparables, directs FAR analysis for purchase transaction

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the exclusion of certain comparables due to functional dissimilarity with the assessee and restoring the issue of benchmarking the international transaction for the purchase of fixed assets back to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination based on FAR analysis and contemporaneous documents filed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee's back-office support services were distinct from the comparables' high-end integrated services or high brand value, impacting profitability. The penalty and interest issues were deemed premature or consequential and not addressed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the final assessment order.
2. Upward adjustment on account of transfer pricing matters.
3. Rejection of the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant.
4. Rejection and addition of comparables on an ad-hoc basis.
5. Violation of natural justice principles.
6. Directions to rectify arithmetical errors in the computation of operating margins.
7. Application of arbitrary filters for identifying comparable companies.
8. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables.
9. Failure to make appropriate adjustments for differences in risk profiles.
10. Use of single year data for financial year 2011-12.
11. Benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to purchase of fixed assets on a standalone basis.
12. Determination of arm's length price for the purchase of fixed assets.
13. Initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
14. Charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Final Assessment Order:
The assessee challenged the final assessment order dated 30 November 2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2), New Delhi, as bad in law and void-ab-initio.

2. Upward Adjustment on Account of Transfer Pricing Matters:
The learned AO computed the total income of the Appellant at INR 54,21,67,892/- against the returned income of INR 49,56,97,610/- by making an upward adjustment of INR 4,64,70,282/- on account of transfer pricing matters. This adjustment included INR 3,36,00,559/- for IT enabled back office support services and INR 1,28,70,223/- for the purchase of fixed assets from AE.

3. Rejection of the Economic Analysis Undertaken by the Appellant:
The learned DRP/TPO/AO erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant by conducting a fresh economic analysis for the impugned international transactions involving provision of ITeS to AE and purchase of fixed assets from AE.

4. Rejection and Addition of Comparables on an Ad-hoc Basis:
The learned DRP/TPO/AO erred in rejecting certain comparables and adding certain companies to the final set of alleged comparables on an ad-hoc basis, thereby resorting to cherry-picking of comparables for benchmarking the transaction involving provision of ITeS.

5. Violation of Natural Justice Principles:
The learned TPO/AO violated the principles of natural justice by not giving due cognizance to the detailed analysis and technical arguments submitted by the appellant and issuing their respective orders after relying on completely new facts without giving the Assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

6. Directions to Rectify Arithmetical Errors in the Computation of Operating Margins:
The learned DRP erred in giving a direction to rectify the arithmetical errors in the computation of the operating margins of alleged comparable companies without appreciating that Indian regulations do not prescribe the methodology for computing operating margins applicable to the Appellant.

7. Application of Arbitrary Filters for Identifying Comparable Companies:
The learned DRP/TPO/AO applied arbitrary filters for identifying companies comparable to the ITeS provided by the Appellant, including rejecting companies with turnover less than INR 1 Crore, different accounting years, employee cost less than 25% of sales, peculiar economic circumstances, and export revenue less than 75% of sales.

8. Selection of Companies Earning Super Normal Profits as Comparables:
The learned DRP/TPO/AO erred by selecting certain companies earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant for the impugned transactions.

9. Failure to Make Appropriate Adjustments for Differences in Risk Profiles:
The learned DRP/TPO/AO failed to make appropriate adjustments to account for differences in the risk profile of the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparables for the transaction involving provision of ITeS.

10. Use of Single Year Data for Financial Year 2011-12:
The learned DRP/TPO/AO erred in using single-year data for the financial year 2011-12 of alleged comparable companies without considering the fact that the same was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements.

11. Benchmarking the International Transaction Pertaining to Purchase of Fixed Assets on a Standalone Basis:
The learned DRP/TPO/AO erred in benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to the purchase of fixed assets on a standalone basis and rejecting the combined transaction approach adopted by the Assessee to benchmark the said impugned transaction.

12. Determination of Arm's Length Price for the Purchase of Fixed Assets:
The learned DRP/TPO/AO erred in determining the arm's length price of the international transaction pertaining to the purchase of fixed assets by ignoring relevant facts, failing to understand that depreciation charged on the fixed asset forms part of the cost base, and not appreciating the valuation undertaken by custom authorities.

13. Initiation of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act:
The learned AO erred in initiating a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

14. Charging of Interest Under Section 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act:
The learned AO erred in charging interest under section 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act.

Separate Judgments Delivered:
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables (Eclerx Services Ltd, Infosys BPO Ltd, and TCS E-Serve Ltd) based on the functional dissimilarity with the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee was providing back-office support services with its own human resources, whereas the comparables were engaged in high-end integrated services or had high brand value impacting profitability.

The Tribunal restored the issue of benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to the purchase of fixed assets back to the file of the TPO for determining the ALP based on FAR analysis and contemporaneous documents filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the exclusion of certain comparables and restoring the issue of the purchase of fixed assets for fresh determination. Grounds related to the penalty and interest were considered premature or consequential and did not require adjudication.

---