ITAT excludes eight companies from transfer pricing benchmarking due to functional differences in software development services

The ITAT Mumbai ruled on multiple transfer pricing and tax issues. The tribunal directed exclusion of eight companies from comparable selection due to functional dissimilarity for software development services benchmarking. Regarding interest on receivables, the case was remanded to TPO to compute outstanding amounts beyond grace periods for each invoice and determine appropriate grace periods based on agreements or market practice. The tribunal disallowed employee PF contribution deduction following SC precedent in Checkmate Services case for non-compliance with deposit timelines. Addition of capital reserve from merger was deleted as it doesn't constitute capital gains under section 47(vi). Finance cost disallowance was partially allowed, deleting interest on receivables from one AE. The AO was directed to examine double addition claims and provide advance tax/TDS credits for merged entity.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Erroneous levy of income tax and interest thereon.
2. Transfer Pricing - General.
3. Transfer Pricing - provision of software development services and related support services.
4. Transfer Pricing - interest on outstanding receivables.
5. Disallowance of employee contribution to PF in the intimation under section 143(1).
6. Addition on account of accretion to reserve treated as LTCG.
7. Disallowance of Finance Cost under section 37(1) of the Act.
8. Short grant of advance tax credit.
9. Short grant of TDS credit.
10. Incorrect calculation of interest under section 234B of the Act.
11. Levy of additional interest under section 234C.
12. Initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Erroneous Levy of Income Tax and Interest Thereon:
- Ground No.1 (1.1): The Tribunal found no need for separate adjudication on this ground.

2. Transfer Pricing - General:
- Ground No.2 (2.1 to 2.3): This was also found to be general and did not warrant separate adjudication.

3. Transfer Pricing - Provision of Software Development Services and Related Support Services:
- Ground No.3 (3.1 to 3.8): The assessee rendered software development and related support services to its AE for Rs. 105,28,58,960/-. The TPO rejected five comparables from the assessee's list and added twelve new comparables, resulting in a TP Adjustment of Rs. 3,03,99,153/-. The Tribunal excluded four companies (Sonata Software Ltd., Dynamic Digital Technology Pvt. Ltd., Endeavour Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and Gislen Software Pvt. Ltd.) due to failing the RPT filter. Eight other companies were excluded based on functional dissimilarity, following the Co-ordinate Bench's decision for AY 2017-18. The TPO was directed to re-compute the ALP.

4. Transfer Pricing - Interest on Outstanding Receivables:
- Ground No. 4 (4.1 to 4.6): The TPO initially made a TP Adjustment of Rs. 98,89,700/-, which was reduced to Rs. 35,49,775 by the DRP. Following the Co-ordinate Bench's decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the interest on receivables, considering the grace period and applying Libor + 200 bps.

5. Disallowance of Employee Contribution to PF in the Intimation Under Section 143(1):
- Ground No. 5 (5.1 to 5.3): The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 27,58,890/- for delayed payment of employee contributions to PF/ESI, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC).

6. Addition on Account of Accretion to Reserve Treated as LTCG:
- Ground No.6 (6.1 to 6.6): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- made towards capital reserve on account of merger, as it was not considered a transfer under section 47(vi) and thus did not result in capital gains. The AO was also directed to examine the issue of double addition in the computation.

7. Disallowance of Finance Cost Under Section 37(1) of the Act:
- Ground No.7 (7.1 to 7.3): The Tribunal deleted the interest charged on the amount receivable from Varian Medical Systems Inc., as the TPO had already accepted that no interest was attributable due to the credit period being less than 20 days.

8. Short Grant of Advance Tax Credit:
- Ground No. 8 (8.1 & 8.2): The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the claim of the assessee based on documentary evidence and give credit accordingly.

9. Short Grant of TDS Credit:
- Ground No. 9 (9.1 & 9.2): Similar to the advance tax credit, the AO was directed to consider the claim based on documentary evidence.

10. Incorrect Calculation of Interest Under Section 234B of the Act:
- Ground No. 10 (10.1 to 10.3): This was found to be consequential and did not warrant separate adjudication.

11. Levy of Additional Interest Under Section 234C:
- Ground No.11 (11.1 to 11.3): This was also found to be consequential and did not warrant separate adjudication.

12. Initiation of Penalty Under Section 270A of the Act:
- Ground No. 12 (12.1 & 12.2): This was found to be consequential and did not warrant separate adjudication.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partially allowed, with specific directions given to the AO for re-computation and consideration of claims based on documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld some disallowances and deletions based on previous judicial precedents and functional dissimilarities.

---