Tribunal grants relief on transfer pricing & directs interest computation

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the rejection of certain transfer pricing documentation and adjustments made by the TPO. Significant relief was granted regarding the exclusion of E Clerx Services Ltd from comparables, computation of operating margins, allowance of ESOP and ESPP expenses, and recognition of unrealized hedging losses. The Tribunal directed the computation of interest on outstanding receivables and provided consequential relief for interest imposed under Section 234B. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed premature and not yet imposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-application of APA terms
2. Rejection of TP documents
3. Rejection of use of multiple year data in applying TNMM
4. Use of additional filters
5. Information obtained u/s 133(6)
6. Selection of uncomparable companies
7. Not following the directions of the Hon'ble DRP
8. Rejection of comparable companies
9. Computation of operating margin of the comparables
10. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences
11. Imputing interest on outstanding receivables
12. Disallowance of expenditure on ESOP and ESPP
13. Disallowance of unrealized hedging loss
14. Imposition of interest u/s 234B
15. Imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-application of APA terms:
The assessee argued that the terms of the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with the CBDT should be applied for the A.Y 2014-15, as the business circumstances remained unchanged. The APA agreed on an 18% operating margin, whereas the assessee's margin was 20.76%. The Tribunal found that since the APA period did not cover the relevant A.Y, the TPO and DRP's independent assessment was valid.

2. Rejection of TP documents:
The TPO rejected the assessee's transfer pricing documentation and conducted a fresh economic analysis, resulting in an adjustment of INR 305,33,05,656. The Tribunal upheld the TPO's decision to reject the documentation due to the use of outdated financial data and other defects in the TP analysis.

3. Rejection of use of multiple year data in applying TNMM:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's use of multiple year data was not justified under Rule 10B(4), which mandates the use of current year financial data unless specific reasons are provided.

4. Use of additional filters:
The TPO's use of additional filters such as diminishing revenue/persistent loss and different financial year end was upheld. These filters were deemed appropriate for a more accurate comparative analysis.

5. Information obtained u/s 133(6):
The Tribunal found that the TPO's selective use of information obtained under Section 133(6) was valid, as it was necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

6. Selection of uncomparable companies:
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that E Clerx Services Ltd should be excluded from the list of comparables due to functional dissimilarity. E Clerx was engaged in high-end KPO services, whereas the assessee provided low-end ITeS services.

7. Not following the directions of the Hon'ble DRP:
The Tribunal directed the AO to follow the DRP's instructions to consider only the operating margin of the office backup operations segment of Hartron Communications Ltd, not the entity level results.

8. Rejection of comparable companies:
The Tribunal remanded the issue of including ACE BPO Services and APE Technologies (P) Ltd to the AO/TPO for reconsideration, provided these companies meet the relevant filters.

9. Computation of operating margin of the comparables:
Since E Clerx Services Ltd was excluded, the Tribunal found no need to adjudicate on the computation of operating margins and risk adjustments, as the assessee's margin fell within the acceptable range.

10. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences:
The Tribunal did not find it necessary to adjudicate this issue separately due to the exclusion of E Clerx Services Ltd.

11. Imputing interest on outstanding receivables:
The Tribunal directed the AO to compute interest on trade receivables after the agreed credit period of 35 days, as specified in the agreement between the assessee and its AE.

12. Disallowance of expenditure on ESOP and ESPP:
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the expenditure on ESOP and ESPP, following the Special Bench decision in Biocon Ltd., which held such expenses to be revenue in nature.

13. Disallowance of unrealized hedging loss:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for unrealized hedging loss, following the Supreme Court's decision in Woodward Governor, which recognized such losses as deductible under Section 37(1).

14. Imposition of interest u/s 234B:
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow consequential relief for interest imposed under Section 234B.

15. Imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal rejected the ground on penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as premature, as it was not yet imposed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with significant relief granted on the exclusion of E Clerx Services Ltd from the list of comparables and the allowance of ESOP and ESPP expenses, among other issues.

---