Tribunal adjusts comparables, reconsiders ALP, and allows full deduction for software expenditure

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by directing the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP), remanding the issue of a particular company for fresh consideration, and instructing the tax authorities to re-examine the ALP for delayed receivables. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled in favor of treating software expenditure as revenue expenditure, allowing the deduction in full.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion and exclusion of comparable companies for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP).
2. Determination of ALP for delayed receivables.
3. Treatment of software expenditure as capital or revenue in nature.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion and Exclusion of Comparable Companies for Determining ALP:

The primary issue was the selection of comparable companies to determine the ALP for software development services rendered by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The assessee challenged the inclusion of certain companies and the exclusion of others by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).

Ground No. 14: The assessee contested the inclusion of Infosys Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Mindtree Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Thirdware Solutions Ltd. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the case of Salesforce.com Vs. DCIT, where these companies were held to be functionally dissimilar to a software development service provider like the assessee. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of these companies from the final list of comparables.

Ground No. 16: The assessee sought the inclusion of I2T2 India Ltd. as a comparable. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in Salesforce.com, remanded the matter to the AO/TPO for verification of the functional comparability of I2T2 India Ltd., directing the AO/TPO to obtain requisite information and provide an opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

2. Determination of ALP for Delayed Receivables:

The TPO computed interest on delayed receivables, treating them as an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. The DRP upheld this view but modified the interest rate, leading to an enhancement of the addition.

Ground Nos. 19-24: The assessee argued that receivables should not be considered an international transaction and that no interest should be imputed without a proper benchmarking analysis. The Tribunal noted conflicting decisions on whether delayed receivables constitute an international transaction. It referred to the retrospective amendment to Section 92B, which includes deferred payment or receivables as an international transaction. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-examine the issue, emphasizing that the interest rate should be based on the currency in which the loan is to be repaid, not the prime lending rate or SBI's short-term deposit rate.

3. Treatment of Software Expenditure:

The assessee claimed software expenses as revenue expenditure, while the AO and DRP treated them as capital expenditure, allowing only depreciation.

Ground No. 25: The Tribunal examined whether the software expenses were for application software or renewal of licenses for periods less than one year. The Tribunal referred to the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. IBM India Ltd., which held that expenditure on application software is revenue in nature. The Tribunal found that the AO/TPO did not make a clear finding on whether the software was application software. It concluded that the expenditure should be allowed in full as revenue expenditure, as it facilitated the efficient conduct of the business and was not in the capital field.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables, remanding the issue of I2T2 India Ltd. for fresh consideration, and instructing the AO/TPO to re-examine the ALP for delayed receivables. It also directed that the software expenditure be treated as revenue expenditure, allowing the deduction in full.

---