2024 (10) TMI 1277 - HC - Income Tax

Revenue's challenge to Tribunal's ALP determination under Section 260A dismissed after merit-based scrutiny

The Bombay HC dismissed an appeal challenging the ALP determination by the Tribunal under Section 260A. The Revenue contended that the HC was precluded ... Appeal challenging the determination of the ALP - substantial question of law - whether High Court is precluded from considering the determination of the ALP determined by the Tribunal, in exercise of powers u/s 260A ? - HELD THAT:- We agree with Respondent/assessee that in the case at hand while passing the order dated 14th January 2019, this Court has not refused to scrutinise the Tribunal’s findings on the ALP. This Court has considered the matter on merits and came to the conclusion that no substantial questions of law arise. We are also informed by respondent that the judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune v. PTC Software (I) (P.) Ltd. [2018 (4) TMI 1002 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] on which the Court had relied upon, has attained finality. In the case of PTC Software (Supra), the appeal that was filed by Revenue, was withdrawn. Issues Involved:1. Double disallowance under Sections 14A and 35D of the Income Tax Act.2. Deduction under Section 10A concerning disallowances under Sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B.3. Inclusion of loss-making company VJIL as a comparable.4. Inclusion of company Quintegra with substantial R&D as a comparable.5. Exclusion of Infosys as a comparable based on turnover and assets.6. Exclusion of Transworld Infotech Ltd. from comparables.7. Exclusion of KALS Information Solutions Ltd. and Helios & Matherson Information Technology Ltd. based on previous documentation.8. Exclusion of ICRA Online as a comparable.Detailed Analysis:Re Question (a): Double Disallowance under Sections 14A and 35DThe Tribunal's decision was upheld, confirming that the disallowance under Section 14A would amount to double disallowance once a deduction under Section 35D was already disallowed. The Court agreed that adding the same amount under Section 14A would lead to double disallowance, which is not permissible. Thus, this question did not raise any substantial question of law and was not entertained.Re Question (b): Deduction under Section 10AThe issue was resolved in favor of the Respondent-Assessee based on the precedent set by the Court in CIT v/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd., which concluded that the Tribunal was correct in deleting the disallowance of deduction under Section 10A. This question did not give rise to any substantial question of law and was not entertained.Re Questions (c) to (h): Computation of Income from International TransactionsThe Court noted that these questions primarily involved the inclusion and exclusion of certain companies as comparables for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions. The Tribunal's findings were based on facts and were not shown to be perverse. The Court emphasized that such appeals should not be filed ritualistically without demonstrating any perversity or failure to adhere to legal principles.Re Question (c): Inclusion of VJIL as a ComparableThe Tribunal found that VJIL was not a persistent loss-making company and thus could be included as a comparable. The Revenue's new argument regarding the cost + method was not entertained as it was not raised before the Tribunal.Re Question (d): Inclusion of Quintegra as a ComparableThe Tribunal found that Quintegra's substantial income from software development services made it a valid comparable. The Revenue did not demonstrate any perversity in this finding.Re Question (e): Exclusion of Infosys as a ComparableThe Tribunal excluded Infosys as a comparable due to its significantly larger size and assets compared to the Respondent. This decision was consistent with the Delhi High Court's precedent, and the Revenue failed to show any error in this finding.Re Question (f): Exclusion of Transworld Infotech Ltd.The Tribunal excluded Transworld Infotech Ltd. because its revenue from software exports was significantly lower than the Respondent's. The Revenue did not challenge this finding effectively.Re Question (g): Exclusion of KALS and Helios & MathersonThe Tribunal excluded these companies based on functional dissimilarity, a decision supported by previous rulings. The Revenue acknowledged that this issue was settled by the Court in PTC Software India Ltd.Re Question (h): Exclusion of ICRA OnlineThe Tribunal found ICRA Online to be functionally different from the Respondent, as it was engaged in product development rather than business support services. The Revenue did not provide any substantial challenge to this finding.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed as the order dated 14th January 2019 was in line with the Apex Court's directions, and no substantial questions of law were raised. The judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune v. PTC Software (I) (P.) Ltd. was noted to have attained finality, further supporting the dismissal of the appeal.