Tribunal adjusts transfer pricing, upholds goodwill claim, reverses Safe Harbor, rejects interest adjustment.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute transfer pricing adjustments by excluding and including specific comparables. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claims for the cost and depreciation on the acquired database and goodwill. The application of Safe Harbor Rules was reversed for the year in question. The Tribunal found no merit in adjusting interest on receivables. The order was pronounced on 21st October 2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order.
2. Transfer pricing adjustments.
3. Application of safe harbor rules.
4. Interest on receivables.
5. Restriction of cost and depreciation on acquired database.
6. Restriction of cost and depreciation on goodwill.
7. Withdrawal of interest and penalty proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order:
The assessee challenged the assessment order dated 28.01.2015, claiming it was "bad in law and void-ab-initio." The Tribunal did not provide a separate analysis on this ground, indicating it was a general contention.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments:
The primary issue was the selection of comparables for benchmarking international transactions. The Tribunal noted that the major business of the assessee was marketing support services, which had been accepted. However, adjustments were made in the IT Enabled Services (ITeS) segment.

- Selection of Comparables: The Tribunal excluded certain companies such as Accentia Technologies Ltd., Infosys BPO Limited, TCS E-serve Limited, TCS E-serve International Ltd., and eClerx Services Limited, citing reasons like functional dissimilarity, high turnover, brand value, and involvement in Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) services.
- Inclusion of Comparables: The Tribunal directed the inclusion of R Systems International Limited (segmental) and Caliber Point Business Solutions Limited, provided their financial data could be reasonably extrapolated to match the assessee's financial year.

3. Application of Safe Harbor Rules:
The Tribunal reversed the application of Safe Harbor Rules for the year under consideration, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs Fiserv India Pvt. Ltd., which held that Safe Harbor Rules are prospective and not applicable for the year in question.

4. Interest on Receivables:
The Tribunal found no merit in the adjustment for interest on receivables, as the working capital adjustment had already been allowed. This decision was based on the Delhi High Court's ruling in Pr. CIT vs Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

5. Restriction of Cost and Depreciation on Acquired Database:
The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim for the cost of the acquired database at Rs. 12 Crores, rejecting the restriction to Rs. 3 Crores. The Tribunal also allowed depreciation on the entire payment towards the acquired business database, following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2002-03.

6. Restriction of Cost and Depreciation on Goodwill:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for the cost of goodwill and depreciation on it, following its previous decision in the assessee's own case and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs Smifs Securities Ltd.

7. Withdrawal of Interest and Penalty Proceedings:
The Tribunal did not provide a separate analysis on the withdrawal of interest u/s 244A and the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), indicating these were general contentions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the transfer pricing adjustments after excluding and including specific comparables as discussed. It also allowed the assessee's claims regarding the cost and depreciation on the acquired database and goodwill. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 21st October 2020.

---