Tribunal partially allows appeal, excludes comparables in Transfer Pricing Adjustment, directs further investigation on refund issue.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly, directing the exclusion of certain comparables in the Transfer Pricing Adjustment case, resulting in the conclusion that the international transaction was at Arm's Length. Regarding the non-receipt of refund for the assessment year 2011-2012, the Tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer to investigate the claim further. As a consequence, the issue of interest under Section 234D was dismissed as the refund verification process was ongoing. The final order was pronounced on 19th October 2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment towards provision for software development services.
2. Non-receipt of refund for assessment year 2011-2012.
3. Interest under Section 234D of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

A. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:

1. Background:
The assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary of JDA Software Inc., engaged in software development services, reported an operating margin of 14.87% for the assessment year 2011-2012. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the assessee's Transfer Pricing (TP) study and selected new comparables, resulting in an adjusted mean margin of 25.58% and an ALP adjustment of Rs. 10,51,12,366.

2. DRP Directions:
The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed the exclusion of certain comparables, reducing the TP adjustment to Rs. 10,08,70,033. The final list of comparables included Acropetal Technologies Limited, e-Zest Solutions Limited, E-Infochips Limited, Evoke Technologies Private Limited, ICRA Techno Analytics Limited, Persistent Systems & Solutions Limited, and R S Software (India) Limited.

3. Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal examined each of the comparables the assessee sought to exclude:

I. Acropetal Technologies Limited:
- The Tribunal noted that the company's income from software development services was less than 75% of total revenue, making it non-comparable. The Tribunal relied on previous orders and directed its exclusion.

II. e-Zest Solutions Limited:
- The Tribunal found that the company was engaged in product development and diverse services, including KPO services, with no segmental details available. Based on previous rulings, the Tribunal directed its exclusion.

III. E-Infochips Limited:
- The Tribunal observed that the company engaged in diverse activities without segmental information and had significant inventory. It failed the software service income filter. The Tribunal directed its exclusion, relying on previous decisions.

IV. ICRA Techno Analytics Limited:
- The Tribunal noted the company's engagement in diverse services, including business intelligence and analytics, making it functionally different from the assessee. The Tribunal directed its exclusion based on prior rulings.

V. Persistent Systems & Solutions Limited:
- The Tribunal found the company engaged in software development and product development without segmental details. It directed its exclusion, referencing previous Tribunal decisions.

4. Conclusion:
With the exclusion of the five comparables, the remaining comparables were Evoke Technologies Private Limited and R S Software (India) Limited. The assessee's margin of 14.87% was more than the arithmetical mean of the working capital adjusted margin of these comparables. Therefore, the international transaction was concluded to be at Arm's Length.

B. Non-receipt of Refund for Assessment Year 2011-2012:

1. Background:
The Assessing Officer (AO) stated that a refund of Rs. 1,08,37,220 had been issued to the assessee. However, the assessee claimed non-receipt of the refund.

2. Tribunal's Directive:
The Tribunal noted that the DRP had directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim but found no verification in the final assessment order. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the assessee's objection regarding the non-receipt of the refund.

C. Interest under Section 234D of the I.T. Act:

1. Background:
The calculation of interest under Section 234D is consequential to the issue of non-receipt of refund.

2. Tribunal's Conclusion:
Since the issue of non-receipt of refund was remitted to the AO for verification, the ground regarding interest under Section 234D was rendered infructuous and dismissed.

Final Order:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. The order was pronounced on 19th October 2020.

---