Software company wins deletion of transfer pricing adjustments under APA but loses delayed PF contributions challenge

The ITAT Hyderabad held that TP adjustments for software development services and interest on delayed receivables were deleted as these transactions were covered under an APA signed after the TPO's order. The assessee had filed modified returns in Form 3CEF giving effect to the APA pricing. The tribunal dismissed the assessee's challenge to disallowance of delayed PF/ESI contributions following SC precedent in Checkmate Services. The tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for section 80G deduction for donations to Karnataka State Disaster Management Authority, directing the AO to verify and allow the deduction. The matter regarding dividend distribution tax interest under section 115P was remanded to the AO for verification of timely payment.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this appeal pertain primarily to the validity and correctness of transfer pricing adjustments, applicability and effect of an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA), procedural compliance in assessment proceedings, and specific disallowances and additions under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The principal issues include:

1. Whether the transfer pricing adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and upheld by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of provision of software development services and interest on delayed receivables are justified, particularly in light of a signed APA covering the relevant assessment year.

2. Validity of the assessment order with respect to limitation under Section 153 of the Act (though this ground was later not pressed).

3. Compliance with procedural safeguards, including the requirement of issuing proper notices and providing opportunity of hearing under Sections 143(1), 144B(1)(xii), and principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem).

4. Correctness of disallowances relating to delayed payment of Employees' Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI) contributions under Section 36(1)(va) and the effect of amendments to these provisions.

5. Validity of the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80G for donations made during assessment proceedings but not originally claimed in the return of income.

6. Legitimacy of interest charged under Section 115P on alleged non-payment or delayed payment of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT).

7. Appropriateness of consequential interest computations under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.

8. Various technical issues related to transfer pricing documentation, selection and rejection of comparable companies, computation of profit level indicators, and adjustments for working capital and risk under Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Transfer Pricing Adjustments and Advance Pricing Agreement (APA)

The legal framework governing transfer pricing adjustments includes Sections 92C, 92CA, 92CC, 92CD, and related provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, along with the Transfer Pricing Rules. The APA mechanism under Sections 92CC and 92CD allows taxpayers to agree in advance with the tax authorities on the arm's length price of international transactions, thereby providing certainty and avoiding transfer pricing disputes.

In this case, the TPO made transfer pricing adjustments amounting to INR 24,37,97,528 on two international transactions: provision of software development services and interest on delayed receivables. These adjustments were upheld by the AO pursuant to directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

The appellant contended that an APA had been signed covering the assessment years 2019-20 to 2023-24, which includes the year under consideration (2020-21). The APA explicitly covers the international transactions in question, as per clauses 2 and 3.1 of the agreement. The appellant filed a modified return of income in Form 3CEF in accordance with the APA, and paid taxes accordingly.

The AO and TPO, however, failed to consider the APA and the modified return while making the transfer pricing adjustments. The Court noted that the APA was signed after the TPO's order and draft assessment order but before the final assessment order. The filing of the modified return and payment of taxes as per the APA were not given due effect.

Applying the statutory provisions under Section 92CD(4), which mandates that assessment proceedings pending on the date of filing of a modified return under an APA shall be completed in accordance with the APA, the Court held that the transfer pricing adjustments made by the AO and TPO were untenable. The additions amounted to double taxation of the same income already offered to tax under the APA.

The Court thus deleted the transfer pricing adjustments in respect of provision of software development services and interest on delayed receivables.

Regarding the appellant's other transfer pricing grounds related to selection of comparables, computation of Profit Level Indicator (PLI), treatment of bad debts, and allowance of working capital and risk adjustments, these were subsumed under the primary issue of APA applicability and not separately adjudicated in detail, as the APA covered the relevant transactions.

Validity of Assessment Order (Limitation)

The appellant challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Section 153 of the Act. However, during hearing, the appellant did not press this ground, and it was dismissed accordingly.

Procedural Compliance and Principles of Natural Justice

The appellant raised grounds alleging non-compliance with procedural requirements, including failure to issue proper intimation under Section 143(1)(a) proposing adjustments, denial of opportunity of hearing under Section 144B(1)(xii) and Faceless Assessment Scheme, and violation of audi alteram partem principle.

The Court noted that the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) issued an intimation under Section 143(1) directly making adjustments without prior notice under Section 143(1)(a), thereby denying the appellant an opportunity to respond. Further, the AO reiterated these adjustments in the final assessment order despite submissions and objections raised by the appellant and the DRP not adjudicating these objections.

While these procedural lapses were noted, the Court's ultimate decision on these grounds was influenced by the substantive issues such as applicability of APA and disallowances under PF/ESI payments.

Disallowance of Employees' Contribution to PF and ESI

The appellant challenged the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) on the ground that the payments were made after the due date prescribed under the relevant enactments but before the due date of filing the return of income, and that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by Finance Act, 2021 was prospective effective from 1 April 2021.

The Court referred to the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that delayed payment of such contributions disallows deduction under the relevant provisions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appellant's grounds challenging the disallowance, confirming the disallowance as per the law and judicial precedent.

Claim for Deduction under Section 80G for Donations

The appellant claimed deduction under Section 80G during the course of assessment proceedings for donations made to the Karnataka State Disaster Management Authority, which was not claimed in the original return of income.

The AO and DRP rejected this claim on the ground that the claim was beyond the return of income and hence not admissible.

The Court, however, relying on a judgment of the Bombay High Court, held that there was no legal impediment to entertain such a claim made during assessment proceedings, especially when supported by valid receipts and compliance with Section 80G. The Court directed the AO to verify the correctness of the claim and allow the deduction if found eligible.

Interest Charged under Section 115P on Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT)

The appellant contested the charging of interest under Section 115P for alleged non-payment or delayed payment of DDT, asserting that the DDT was paid within the prescribed time.

The Court observed that the issue required proper verification of facts regarding payment timelines and directed the AO to verify the same and re-adjudicate accordingly.

Consequential Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C

The appellant challenged the computation of interest under these sections on assessed income rather than returned income.

The Court noted these were consequential issues and did not require separate adjudication at this stage.

Significant Holdings

"Since the international transactions which is subject matter of this appeal are already covered under the APA and the assessee has already filed the modified return of income in Form 3CEF... then the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of TP adjustment in respect of the same international transactions would not survive."

"In terms of the price agreed between the parties as per the APA, the TP adjustment made in respect of these two international transactions namely provision of software development services and interest on delayed receivables is not sustainable and the same is deleted."

"In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd vs. CIT... the disallowance of delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is upheld."

"There was no legal impediment for entertaining a claim based on the fact of donation made to the eligible fund/Trust u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961... We admit this additional claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80G and direct the Assessing Officer to verify the correctness of the claim and then allow deduction."

"The issue regarding interest under Section 115P requires proper verification as to whether the assessee has paid the dividend distribution tax within the prescribed time limit or not. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify this fact and then re-adjudicate this issue."

The Court's final determinations were that the transfer pricing adjustments relating to software development services and interest on delayed receivables were invalid due to the binding APA and the filing of modified returns; disallowances of PF/ESI contributions were upheld per Supreme Court precedent; the additional claim under Section 80G was admitted for verification and allowance; and the interest under Section 115P required factual verification. Other procedural and consequential grounds were either dismissed or left for further adjudication as necessary.

---