Tribunal Partially Allows Appeal in Transfer Pricing Case, Excludes Companies from Comparables List

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the exclusion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. from the list of comparables for benchmarking the international transaction of "Provision of Design Engineering Services." The appeal regarding the disallowance under section 43B was allowed, citing timely deposit of employees' contribution to the Provident Fund Scheme. The matter was remitted to the AO/TPO for reworking the arm's length price in line with the Tribunal's directions, ensuring the assessee's right to a fair hearing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd. in the final set of comparables for determining the arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transaction of "Provision of Design Engineering Services".
2. Inclusion of Eclerx Services Ltd. in the final set of comparables for benchmarking the same international transaction.
3. Disallowance under section 43B of the Income-tax Act on account of late deposit of Employees’ contribution to Provident Fund Scheme.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd. in the Final Set of Comparables:
The assessee, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMCC, USA, filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 10,31,24,860 and disclosed five international transactions. The AO referred the matter of determining the ALP of these transactions to the TPO. The TPO initially included Acropetal Technologies Ltd. in the list of comparables but later rectified this by excluding it, noting that its PLI was wrongly considered and it was an exceptionally high-profit-making company. The DRP did not address the comparability of Acropetal Technologies Ltd. However, while giving effect to the DRP's directions, the TPO included Acropetal Technologies Ltd. again without any new direction from the DRP.

The Tribunal noted that once the TPO excluded Acropetal Technologies Ltd. in the rectification order, and the DRP did not direct its inclusion, the TPO and AO had no jurisdiction to re-include it while giving effect to the DRP's directions. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd. from the list of comparables.

2. Inclusion of Eclerx Services Ltd. in the Final Set of Comparables:
The TPO included Eclerx Services Ltd. in the list of comparables, reasoning that both the assessee and Eclerx Services Ltd. provided KPO services. However, the Tribunal noted that the mere classification of services under KPO does not automatically make companies comparable. The functional profile of Eclerx Services Ltd., which included financial services, sales and marketing services, and cable and telecommunication services, differed significantly from the assessee's design engineering services. Additionally, Eclerx Services Ltd. underwent extraordinary financial events, including the acquisition and integration of Agilyst, which affected its financial results.

The Tribunal cited precedents where companies with extraordinary financial events were excluded from comparables. Consequently, Eclerx Services Ltd. was directed to be excluded from the list of comparables.

3. Disallowance under Section 43B on Account of Late Deposit of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund Scheme:
The AO disallowed Rs. 13,34,813 due to the late deposit of employees' contribution to the Provident Fund Scheme. The Tribunal referred to the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., which held that no disallowance can be made if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1). As the contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return, the Tribunal allowed this ground of appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. from the list of comparables for benchmarking the international transaction of "Provision of Design Engineering Services" and allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance under section 43B. The matter was remitted to the AO/TPO for reworking the ALP in accordance with the Tribunal's observations and directions, ensuring the assessee was given an adequate opportunity of hearing.

---