Tribunal decides on Arm's Length Price for Software & IT Services, directs Transfer Pricing Officer for adjustments

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals of both the assessee and the revenue in a case involving the determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for Software Development Services (SWD) and Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS). The Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) was accepted as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the ALP. The Tribunal directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to recompute the ALP for SWD and ITeS segments and adjust the deduction under Section 10A in line with the High Court's decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for Software Development Services (SWD) and Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS).
2. Exclusion and inclusion of certain comparable companies.
3. Application of specific filters for comparables.
4. Treatment of foreign exchange gains.
5. Negative working capital adjustment.
6. Computation of deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for SWD and ITeS:
The primary issue in both appeals is the determination of ALP for international transactions involving the provision of SWD and ITeS by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) was accepted as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the ALP, with Operating Profit/Total Cost (OP/TC) as the profit level indicator.

2. Exclusion and Inclusion of Comparable Companies:
- Revenue's Appeal:
- Acropetal Technologies Ltd.: Excluded due to failure in employee cost filter and service revenue filter.
- Mindtree Ltd. and RS Software (India) Ltd.: Initially excluded by the DRP for onsite development activities but included by the Tribunal as the filter was not applied by the TPO.
- E-Infochips Ltd.: Excluded due to lack of segmental information and presence of significant inventory.
- ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd.: Excluded due to lack of segmental information.
- Infosys Technologies Ltd.: Excluded for being functionally dissimilar due to its engagement in software products and high brand value.
- Evoke Technologies Ltd.: Included as it was comparable and consistently held as such by the Tribunal.
- Cosmic Global Ltd.: Initially excluded by the DRP but included by the Tribunal as the assessee did not object to its inclusion.

- Assessee's Appeal:
- Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.: Excluded due to engagement in the development of software products and high R&D expenditure.
- CG Vak Software and Export Ltd.: Included as it was functionally comparable and passed the employee cost filter.
- Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd.: Remanded to the TPO for reconsideration based on judicial decisions.
- Tata Elxsi Ltd.: Remanded to the TPO for reconsideration based on judicial decisions.

3. Application of Specific Filters for Comparables:
The DRP applied certain filters such as onsite revenue filter and employee cost filter, which were not applied by the TPO. The Tribunal upheld some exclusions based on these filters while rejecting others where the application of filters was arbitrary.

4. Treatment of Foreign Exchange Gains:
The DRP directed that foreign exchange gains be treated as operating in nature while computing the margins of the assessee and the comparable companies. The Tribunal upheld this direction.

5. Negative Working Capital Adjustment:
The Tribunal held that negative working capital adjustment should not be made in the case of a captive service provider as there is no risk and it is compensated on a total cost-plus basis.

6. Computation of Deduction under Section 10A:
The DRP directed the AO to exclude telecommunication expenses and travel expenses incurred in foreign currency from both the export turnover and the total turnover while computing the deduction under Section 10A, following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. This direction was upheld by the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals of both the assessee and the revenue in part. The TPO was directed to recompute the ALP for both SWD and ITeS segments as per the Tribunal's directions, and the computation of deduction under Section 10A was to be done in accordance with the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

---