2019 (10) TMI 900 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Decision on Comparable Exclusion & Operating Profit Margin Recomputation

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to exclude E-clerx Services Ltd. as a comparable, emphasizing the functional differences between Eclerx as a KPO ... TP Adjustment - comparable selection - DRP rejecting Eclerx Services Ltd. treating it as KPO - HELD THAT:- It is a settled issue that the 'E-clerx' constitutes a KPO company and the same is not comparable to that of a BPO company like the present assessee. Considering the settled nature of the issue at the level of the Jurisdictional High Court on this issue, we find the order of the DRP and the Assessing Officer is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Computation of operating profit margin without considering the one-time price rebate - HELD THAT:- As decided in AAM SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 1814 - ITAT PUNE] such prior period expenses/items/foreign exchanges losses are not to be reduced from the current year's profits for determining PLI of the year under consideration. DRP granted relief to the assessee on this issue of prior period rebate claim qua the computation of the PLI of the assessee for the current year. It is a settled legal proposition that the 'extraordinary items' such as the prior period rebate expenses should not be considered for the computation of the operating profits for the current year. Reliance is placed on the said Pune Bench decisions (supra) and the Delhi Bench decision in the case of EDAG Enggineers & Design India (P.) Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 1010 - ITAT DELHI] We should direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to re-compute the operating profit margin of the assessee without considering the said “one-time price rebate” and thus, we affirm the views of the DRP. Thus, on the strength of the precedents on the subject, the order of the DRP in giving the above direction to the Assessing Officer, is fair and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Inclusion/Exclusion of E-clerx Services Ltd. as a comparable.2. Computation of operating profit margin without considering the one-time price rebate.Detailed Analysis:1. Inclusion/Exclusion of E-clerx Services Ltd. - Ground No.1Background:The TPO included E-clerx Services Ltd. (Eclerx) as a comparable in the final list, which the assessee contested, arguing that Eclerx is a KPO company and thus not comparable to the assessee, which is a BPO company.DRP's Decision:The DRP accepted the assessee's argument and directed the exclusion of Eclerx from the list of comparables, stating that Eclerx, being a KPO company, is not functionally comparable to the assessee, which is a BPO company.Tribunal's Analysis:The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision, emphasizing that Eclerx provides high-end KPO services, which involve specialized knowledge and domain expertise, unlike the low-end ITES services provided by the assessee. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including the Bombay High Court’s decision in Pr. CIT v. PTC Software (India) (P.) Ltd., which held that KPO companies are not good comparables for BPO companies. The Tribunal concluded that merely falling under the broader ITES category does not make two entities comparable if their functional profiles are significantly different.Conclusion:The Tribunal found the DRP's order fair and reasonable, dismissing the Revenue's ground on this issue.2. Computation of Operating Profit Margin without Considering the One-Time Price Rebate - Ground No.2Background:The TPO adjusted the operating profit margin of the assessee by considering a one-time price rebate of Rs. 5,32,10,455/- as an operating expense, which the assessee contested, arguing that it was a prior period expense and should not be included in the current year's operating profit margin.DRP's Decision:The DRP granted relief to the assessee, directing the TPO to re-compute the operating profit margin without considering the one-time price rebate. The DRP held that the rebate, being related to the service revenue of the earlier assessment year (2010-11), should not be considered as an operating expense for the current year (2011-12).Tribunal's Analysis:The Tribunal upheld the DRP’s decision, referencing previous decisions where similar issues were adjudicated. The Tribunal noted that prior period expenses should not be reduced from the current year's profits for determining the PLI. It cited the decision in Dy CIT v. Aam Services India (P.) Ltd., which supported the exclusion of prior period expenses from the current year's operating profit calculation.Conclusion:The Tribunal affirmed the DRP's direction to re-compute the operating profit margin without considering the one-time price rebate, dismissing the Revenue's ground on this issue.Final Judgment:The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the DRP's decisions on both issues.