2022 (5) TMI 1676 - AT - Income Tax

Software company wins transfer pricing dispute as tribunal excludes multiple comparables for functional differences

Hewitt Associates (India) Private Limited Versus ACIT, Circle-12 (1), New Delhi.

Hewitt Associates (India) Private Limited Versus ACIT, Circle-12 (1), New Delhi. - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal pertain to:Whether the transfer pricing adjustments proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and confirmed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in respect of international transactions for software development support services and BPO/ITeS services are justified and in accordance with law.Whether the working capital adjustment directed by the DRP but not allowed by the AO should be granted to the assessee.The validity and correctness of the selection and rejection of comparable companies by the TPO and DRP for benchmarking the international transactions under the Transfer Pricing regulations.Whether the AO erred in restricting the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources, contrary to the provisions of sections 32(2) and 72 of the Income Tax Act.Whether the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolution in respect of US-related transactions affects the appeal and the extent of transfer pricing adjustment that remains under dispute.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISA. Transfer Pricing Adjustments in Software Development Support and BPO/ITeS ServicesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Transfer Pricing provisions under Sections 92C and 92CA of the Income Tax Act, along with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, govern the determination of arm's length price (ALP) in international transactions. The Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is an accepted method, and the selection of comparable companies must be based on functional comparability and adherence to prescribed filters. Precedents emphasize the need for cogent economic analysis and functional comparability for selection of comparables.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal scrutinized the comparability analysis conducted by the TPO, AO, and DRP against the assessee's submissions. The assessee's contention was that the TPO's rejection of its comparables and substitution with a new set was arbitrary, based on conjecture, and biased towards selecting high-margin companies, resulting in inflated ALP and additions.The Tribunal undertook a detailed examination of each disputed comparable company in both software support and BPO/ITeS segments. It considered the functional profile, financial ratios (such as employee cost to sales), nature of business activities (product vs. service orientation), presence of intangible assets, scale of operations, extraordinary events (like mergers and acquisitions), and availability of segmental data.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted significant functional dissimilarities between the assessee and many comparables, such as:Companies engaged in product development or sale of software products, unlike the assessee which only provided software support services.Entities involved in high-end Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) services or specialized technical services, while the assessee provided simpler captive BPO/ITeS services.Comparables having substantial intangible assets, brand value, and R&D expenditure, unlike the assessee.Companies with abnormal or fluctuating profit margins or extraordinary events affecting their financials.Entities outsourcing significant portions of their work, contrary to the captive nature of the assessee's operations.The Tribunal also noted that the TPO failed to verify or adequately consider the assessee's objections regarding employee cost ratios, outsourcing practices, and functional differences, despite directions from the DRP to do so.Application of Law to Facts: Applying the statutory requirement of functional comparability and economic analysis, the Tribunal found that many comparables included by the TPO were not suitable benchmarks. It directed the AO/TPO to exclude such companies from the final list of comparables after fresh verification and opportunity to the assessee to be heard, thereby ensuring compliance with the principles under Sections 92C and 92CA and Rule 10B.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department defended the TPO's selection on grounds of functional similarity and the wide scope of the assessee's activities, including after-sales and upgrade services. The Tribunal, however, gave precedence to detailed functional and financial analysis over broad categorizations, relying on judicial precedents that emphasize the exclusion of comparables with marked differences in risk profiles, intangibles, and business models.Conclusions: The Tribunal remanded the issues of inclusion/exclusion of disputed comparables to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration in accordance with its directions, emphasizing the need for proper application of filters, functional comparability, and adherence to DRP's directions.B. Working Capital AdjustmentRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and Rule 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules provide for working capital adjustments to account for differences in the timing of payments and receipts between the tested party and comparables, reflecting the time value of money.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The DRP had directed the AO/TPO to grant working capital adjustment using the OECD formula and a prime lending rate of 10.25% (State Bank of India rate for the relevant year). However, the AO failed to implement this direction in the final assessment order.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the TPO granted working capital adjustment in the subsequent assessment year (AY 2008-09), confirming acceptance of the principle. The DRP's direction was binding under Section 144C(10) of the Act.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to grant the working capital adjustment was contrary to the DRP's binding directions and judicial precedents supporting such adjustments.Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to grant the working capital adjustment as per the DRP's directions, applying the OECD formula and specified PLR.C. Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) Resolution and Scope of AppealRelevant Legal Framework: Article 27 of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement provides for MAP to resolve transfer pricing disputes between competent authorities.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee's AE in the USA filed a MAP application, resulting in a resolution between the Indian and US competent authorities adjusting transfer pricing issues related to US transactions. The assessee consented to the MAP resolution and accordingly limited its appeal to non-US related transactions.Conclusions: The Tribunal accepted the revised grounds of appeal limiting the dispute to the non-US transactions amounting to Rs. 2,90,05,807/- out of the total adjustment of Rs. 41,20,14,305/-.D. Set-off of Unabsorbed Depreciation Against Income from Other SourcesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act allows unabsorbed depreciation to be set off against income under any head, including income from other sources, if there is no income from business or profession. Section 72 governs set-off of losses but does not restrict the application of Section 32(2). Judicial precedents have upheld the primacy of Section 32(2) in allowing such set-offs.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO restricted the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation to business income only, disallowing set-off against income from other sources. The assessee contended this was contrary to law and supported by authoritative judgments.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions and judicial precedents, noting that unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against income from other sources in the absence of business income.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to allow the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.Conclusions: The AO was directed to reconsider the claim for set-off of unabsorbed depreciation under Section 32(2) read with Section 72.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The provisions contained in Rule 10B(3) also mandate adjustments wherever there are material differences in the situations of comparables and the taxpayer. The different benches of the ITATs have upheld such adjustment [Vedaris Technology ITAT (Del); Sony India [114ITD448(Del)J, Mentor Graphics, E Gain communication 2008-TIOL-282-ITAT-PUNE, Global Vantedge 2010-TOP;-24ITAT-DEL, TNT India P Ltd 201l-TII-39-ITAT-BANG-TP,etc]. Now that data is furnished, the AO/ TPO is therefore directed to verify the same and grant working capital adjustment based on the OECD formula and by taking 10.25% as the PLR. The aforesaid rate is adopted as the State Bank of India which is the leading bank in India has charged this rate in the year under reference for working capital loans.''...The Tribunal has considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Co. Pvt. Ltd. to hold that Ishir Infotech is also out-sourcing its work and, therefore, has not satisfied the 25% employee cost filter and thus has to be excluded from the list of comparables... we hold that these two companies are also to be excluded.''Infosys Technologies Ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparables for the reason latter was a giant company in the area of development of software and it assumed all risks leading to higher profits, whereas the respondent-assessee was a captive unit of the parent company and assumed only a limited risk.''...we hold that this company cannot be considered as a comparable to a low risk captive service provider who does not own any such intangible and hence does not have an additional advantage in the market. As the Assessee in the case on hand does not own any intangibles, following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e. 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that this company cannot be considered as a comparable to the assessee.''...the unabsorbed depreciation would be set off with business income or under any other head of income including 'income from other sources' and accordingly the question referred to him is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.'The Tribunal's core principles established include:Strict adherence to functional comparability and economic analysis in selecting comparable companies under transfer pricing regulations.Recognition of the binding nature of DRP directions, including working capital adjustments based on OECD guidelines.Exclusion of comparables with significant differences in risk profile, intangibles, scale, and business model from benchmarking analysis.Allowance of unabsorbed depreciation set-off against income from other sources under Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act.Acceptance of MAP resolutions to limit the scope of disputes in transfer pricing appeals.Final determinations on each issue were to remand the transfer pricing comparability analysis for fresh consideration excluding unsuitable comparables, direct grant of working capital adjustment, allow set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against other income, and limit the appeal to non-US transactions as per MAP resolution.