Tribunal rules in favor of assessee in transfer pricing dispute, excludes incomparable comparables.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly by excluding incomparable comparables in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for back office and software support services. The inclusion of TCS E-serve Ltd., Infosys, and Wipro was challenged and directed for exclusion due to functional dissimilarities and significant differences. The Tribunal also addressed the inclusion of house property income and disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), ruling in favor of the assessee based on permissible tolerance limits and revenue neutrality principles under Section 10A deduction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment to arm's length price (ALP) for back office support services.
2. Adjustment to ALP for software support services (IT segment).
3. Consideration of house property income.
4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for non-withholding of tax on payments to foreign parties and its impact on Section 10A deduction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adjustment to Arm's Length Price (ALP) for Back Office Support Services:
The primary issue raised by the assessee was the inclusion/exclusion of comparables in determining the ALP for international transactions related to back office support services. The assessee contested the inclusion of TCS E-serve Ltd., arguing it was functionally dissimilar due to its engagement in business process management services in the banking and financial services vertical, unlike the assessee, which provided routine back office services like data entry and reconciliation. The Tribunal noted significant differences, such as TCS E-serve's possession of intangibles like the 'Tata Brand', its substantially higher turnover, and super normal profits, making it incomparable. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of TCS E-serve Ltd. from the list of comparables, leading to the acceptance of the assessee's margin within the permissible tolerance limit, thus allowing the ground in favor of the assessee.

2. Adjustment to ALP for Software Support Services (IT Segment):
The assessee challenged the inclusion of Infosys Ltd. and Wipro Technologies Ltd. as comparables for its software support services. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided routine software development services, while Infosys and Wipro were engaged in diversified activities with significant intangibles and super normal profits. The Tribunal directed their exclusion, emphasizing that their giant size and different pricing models made them incomparable. The Tribunal instructed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to recompute the margins of the remaining comparables and determine if any adjustment to ALP was necessary, thus allowing the ground in favor of the assessee for statistical purposes.

3. Consideration of House Property Income:
The assessee argued that the house property income of Rs. 9,99,600/- was included in the revised return but not in the original return. The Assessing Officer (AO) taxed this amount in the final assessment order without it being part of the draft assessment order. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if this income was considered in the draft assessment order. If it was, the AO was justified in including it in the final order; otherwise, the addition should be deleted. This ground was disposed of with these directions.

4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) and Impact on Section 10A Deduction:
The assessee faced disallowance of Rs. 31,59,524/- for non-withholding of tax on payments to foreign parties. The issue was whether this disallowance would increase the deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The Tribunal noted that even if disallowance was made, it would enhance the business income of the eligible unit, thereby increasing the Section 10A deduction, making it revenue neutral. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Lionbridge Technologies (P) Ltd. and the CBDT Circular No.37/2016, which supported this view. Consequently, the ground was allowed in favor of the assessee.

Other Grounds:
Ground No.8 was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed as not pressed. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's order addressed the various grounds raised by the assessee, providing detailed reasoning for the exclusion of certain comparables and the treatment of house property income and disallowance under Section 40(a)(i). The appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions for the AO and TPO to follow.

---