2022 (8) TMI 1582 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Mumbai restores transfer pricing comparable selection to AO/TPO, rejects Rule 8D for section 14A disallowance

Capita India Private Ltd. Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.

The ITAT Mumbai ruled on transfer pricing adjustments and section 14A disallowance. Regarding comparable selection for ITES services, the tribunal ... TP adjustment - Comparable selection - assessee had entered into international transactions with its AE in the form of provision of ITES - HELD THAT:- M/s R systems International limited company could not have been rejected by the TPO merely for the reason that it follows different accounting year, when the financial year results for the period matching with that of the assessee could be collated. However, as submitted by Ld D.R, it is required to be examined as to whether this company gets itself qualified in other filters applied by the TPO also. Accordingly, we are of the view that this comparable company needs to be examined afresh at the end of AO/TPO. Accordingly, we restore this comparable company to the file of AO/TPO for examining it afresh. M/s Infosys BPO Ltd renders specialized services, which cannot be compared with the low end back officer support services provided by the assessee as captive service provider. The existence of brand value for M/s Infosys BPO would definitely get premium price for the services provided by it. Accordingly, we are also of the view that M/s Infosys BPO Ltd cannot be compared with the assessee herein. Accordingly, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the same. M/s MPS Ltd company cannot be taken as a comparable company for the assessee herein. Accordingly, we direct exclusion of this company as it offers different types of services such as (a) Content creation and development, (b) Content production and transformation, (c) Learning media solutions and customer support, (d) Order management and (e) Platform development and technology services. Further it has developed different domain platforms involving specialized technologies. However, the assessee herein is a low end back officer support services provider. Working capital adjustment and risk adjustment - We restore the issue of determining ALP of international transaction of provision of ITES services to the file of AO/TPO. Disallowance made u/s 14A - The major investment has been made by the assessee in its group company from which about 60% of dividend income has been received. The remaining dividend income has been received from the three schemes of mutual funds. The investment made in the group company does not involve significant efforts. The investment made in mutual fund schemes also would not require much deliberations as required in the normal course of making investments in shares. Further the assessee has invested in three schemes only. Hence we are of the view that the disallowance, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not required to be made in accordance with Rule 8D of IT Rules. Assessee has made alternative computation for disallowance u/s 14A by apportioning the common expenses between business income and exempt income in proportionate ratio - In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this alternative computation may be accepted. Hence we hold that the AO was not justified in applying rule 8D without properly appreciating the facts surrounding this issue. Accordingly, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 5,52,490/- and we order accordingly. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include:(a) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) selection of comparable companies and margin determination is justified, particularly concerning the inclusion or exclusion of certain comparable companies (R Systems International Limited, Infosys BPO Ltd, and MPS Ltd) in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions under the Income Tax Act.(b) Whether the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the working capital adjustment and risk adjustment claims made by the assessee in the transfer pricing study.(c) Whether the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, relating to expenditure incurred in relation to exempt dividend income, was correctly computed and applied by the AO.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Transfer Pricing Adjustment and Selection of Comparable CompaniesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act pertains to transfer pricing adjustments. The Transfer Pricing Officer applies prescribed methods, including the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNM), and selects comparable companies based on functional and financial comparability. The selection of comparables must satisfy filters such as accounting year, functional profile, business model, and risk profile. The Tribunal referred to precedents including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT-II vs. McKinsey Knowledge Centre India P Ltd and Tribunal decisions in Maersk Global Centres (India) Pvt Ltd and Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Pvt Ltd.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:(a) Inclusion of R Systems International Limited: The TPO excluded this company on grounds of different accounting year and prior rejection in AY 2015-16. The assessee argued that quarterly results allow collation of financial data matching the relevant accounting year and that the company is functionally comparable. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court ruling which held that a comparable cannot be excluded solely because it follows a different accounting year if financial data for the relevant period can be reasonably extrapolated. The Tribunal accepted that the accounting year filter alone cannot justify exclusion and directed the AO/TPO to re-examine this comparable for other filters.(b) Exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd: The assessee contended that Infosys BPO provides high-end, integrated, and specialized services involving significant risks, brand value, and intangible assets, unlike the assessee which provides low-end, routine back-office IT enabled services as a captive service provider. The Tribunal noted that the turnover of Infosys BPO was substantially higher (Rs. 2,940 crores vs. Rs. 347 crores), and the company bears risks and commands premium pricing due to brand value and investments in robotics process automation. The Tribunal relied on the Special Bench's observations in Maersk and the Bangalore Tribunal decision in Acuity Knowledge Centre, which held that companies providing high-end services and bearing entrepreneurial risks are not comparable to captive low-end service providers. Accordingly, Infosys BPO was directed to be excluded from the comparable set.(c) Exclusion of MPS Ltd: The assessee argued that MPS Ltd is engaged in content creation, production, platform development, and technology services involving R&D and outsourcing, which differ functionally and in business model from the assessee's ITES activities. The Tribunal referred to a co-ordinate bench decision in Emerson Electric Co (India) Pvt Ltd, which held MPS Ltd functionally non-comparable due to its predominant digital publishing business and different cost structure, including significant outsourcing. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submissions and directed exclusion of MPS Ltd from comparables.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal considered turnover figures, nature of services, functional profiles, risk bearing, brand value, and prior judicial decisions. The Tribunal also examined the applicability of accounting year filters and functional comparability tests.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that comparability is fact-specific and requires matching functional profiles and risk profiles. Mere difference in accounting year is not a valid ground for exclusion if data can be reasonably adjusted. High-end specialized service providers with significant brand value and risk cannot be compared with captive low-end service providers.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal balanced the assessee's submissions supported by judicial precedents against the TPO's and AO's reliance on financial metrics and filters. It accepted the assessee's arguments on functional dissimilarity and brand value while rejecting the TPO's rigid application of accounting year filter without considering data availability.Conclusion: The Tribunal restored R Systems International Limited for re-examination by AO/TPO and excluded Infosys BPO Ltd and MPS Ltd from the comparable set for transfer pricing purposes. It also restored the issues of working capital and risk adjustments to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration in accordance with law.Issue 2: Working Capital and Risk AdjustmentRelevant Legal Framework: Transfer pricing regulations permit adjustments for working capital and risk to ensure arm's length comparability.Court's Reasoning: The assessee claimed entitlement to these adjustments, which were not granted by AO/TPO. The Tribunal did not decide the issue on merits but restored it to AO/TPO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.Conclusion: Issue restored for fresh decision.Issue 3: Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax RulesRelevant Legal Framework: Section 14A disallows expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income such as dividend income. Rule 8D prescribes the method for computing such disallowance.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO disallowed Rs. 1.11 crores after applying Rule 8D, rejecting the assessee's lower disallowance claim of Rs. 4.29 lakhs. The assessee's investments included a major investment in a group company (Ventura India Pvt Ltd) and three mutual fund schemes. The Tribunal noted that investment in the group company did not require significant effort and that mutual fund investments were limited and routine. The Tribunal held that the AO erred in mechanically applying Rule 8D without appreciating the factual matrix. The assessee's alternative computation of disallowance at Rs. 5.52 lakhs, based on apportionment of common expenses certified by a Chartered Accountant, was accepted.Key Evidence and Findings: Investment details, nature of investments, dividend income breakup, and certified computations submitted by the assessee.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that disallowance under section 14A must be based on actual expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income and not on a mechanical formula where facts do not justify it.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO's reliance on Rule 8D was countered by the assessee's factual submissions and alternative computations. The Tribunal favored a fact-specific approach over a mechanical application.Conclusion: The Tribunal restricted the disallowance under section 14A to Rs. 5,52,490 and directed the AO accordingly.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'If from the available data on record, the results for financial year can reasonably be extrapolated then the comparable cannot be excluded solely on the ground that the comparables have different financial year endings.''In our opinion, the answer to this question will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case inasmuch as if the assessee company, on the basis of its own functional profile, is found to have provided to its AE the low-end back office support services like voice or data processing services as a whole or substantially the whole, the companies providing mainly high-end services by using their specialized knowledge and domain expertise cannot be considered as comparables.''The comparable chosen by the ld. TPO, M/s. MPS Ltd., is functionally not comparable with that of the assessee and accordingly, we direct the ld. TPO to exclude the same from the list of comparables.''The disallowance under section 14A cannot be applied mechanically by applying Rule 8D without appreciating the facts surrounding the issue. The disallowance must be restricted to the actual expenditure relatable to exempt income.'The Tribunal's final determinations are:(a) The comparable company R Systems International Limited is to be re-examined by AO/TPO for inclusion after applying all filters including accounting year, given that financial data can be collated for the relevant period.(b) Infosys BPO Ltd and MPS Ltd are functionally and commercially non-comparable with the assessee's low-end captive ITES services and are excluded from the comparable set.(c) The issues of working capital and risk adjustments are restored for fresh consideration by AO/TPO.(d) The disallowance under section 14A is restricted to Rs. 5,52,490, rejecting the AO's higher disallowance computed under Rule 8D.