Appeal partly allowed: reject notional interest adjustment; exclude marketing costs and non-operational bank charges from PLI; apply section 115BBA

ITAT, Bangalore partly allowed the appeal: it rejected the TPO's notional interest adjustment because the receipts were advances settling intra-group receivables leaving no outstanding benefit; marketing costs and identified non-operational bank charges were excluded from the PLI; the assessee's artificial segmentation was disallowed as manipulative; several comparables wrongly excluded by the TPO were directed to be included after verification while certain others were held non-comparable; the matter was remitted to TPO/AO to recompute ALP/PLI accordingly. AO directed to apply corporate tax as per section 115BBA after verification.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

i. Whether a notional interest adjustment is warranted on alleged outstanding receivables from Associated Enterprises where advances and receivables were mutually settled and no receivable remained at year end.

ii. Whether marketing expenditure (salaries/expenses of sales & marketing personnel claimed as Rs. 72,85,857/-) should be excluded from operating cost for computing the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for international transactions with AEs.

iii. Whether bank charges (Rs. 42,635/-) can be excluded from operating cost for PLI computation and the proper test for treating bank charges as operational under Rule 10TA(j).

iv. Whether AE-wise segmental reporting (treating each AE as a separate segment) for computing PLI is permissible where services, geography and functional profile are substantially the same.

v. Whether comparables rejected or added by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) were rightly excluded/ included - specifically: (a) rejection of certain comparables proposed by the taxpayer though meeting FAR and filters; (b) inclusion of large diversified entities failing upper turnover/functional comparability filters; and (c) the standard for exclusion based on search-filter absence.

vi. Whether corporate tax should be levied under the concessional scheme invoked by the taxpayer (direction to levy tax as per section 115BBA/115BAA provisions raised as ground).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue i - Notional Interest on Outstanding Receivables

Legal framework: Section 92(1) requires determination of income from international transactions at arm's length; TPO may make adjustments under transfer pricing provisions. Notional interest arises only where there is an outstanding receivable or economic benefit giving rise to a financing component.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal emphasized substance over form in transfer pricing; mutual set-off and integrated commercial reality are relevant in assessing whether an outstanding receivable exists.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined books showing advances and receivables and evidence of mutual set-off. Although advances were recorded, after offset no receivable remained at year end. Intercompany documentation corroborated that advances represented settlement of intra-group receivables. The doctrine of substance over form permits treating the integrated transaction as settled; notional interest is unjustified in absence of a genuine outstanding receivable.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio. The Court held that notional interest adjustment lacks legal and factual basis where effective settlement/mutual offset eliminates any outstanding receivable.

Conclusion: TPO's notional interest adjustment was untenable; interest adjustment disallowed (consistent with DRP direction to adopt different benchmark but ultimately rejected by Tribunal on substance).

Issue ii - Exclusion of Marketing Expenditure from Operating Cost

Legal framework: Rule 10TA(j) defines operating costs as costs incurred in the previous year in relation to the international transaction during normal operations; operating cost inclusion requires demonstrable connection to the international transaction.

Precedent treatment: The Court applied principle that expenses for generating domestic revenue (non-AE business) are non-operating for international transactions with AEs; evidence such as segmental accounts and ledgers is material.

Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee produced audited segmental accounts, ledgers marking S&M, emails and invoices showing marketing efforts targeted at domestic clients and business generation in later years. The Court found that marketing expenses to obtain domestic business are not costs of providing services to common-control AEs and that advertising to solicit one's own AE is commercially implausible. The DRP's general statement that business expenses are operating without addressing nexus was insufficient. The relevant test is nexus to international transaction; where marketing cost pertains to non-AE revenue, it must be excluded from PLI calculation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio. The Court held that marketing expenditure specifically demonstrated to relate to domestic business must be excluded from operating cost for PLI computation vis-à-vis AE transactions.

Conclusion: Marketing costs of Rs. 72,85,857/- held non-operating for AE transactions and excluded from PLI computation.

Issue iii - Treatment of Bank Charges under Rule 10TA(j)

Legal framework: Rule 10TA(j) requires operating costs to be costs incurred in relation to the international transaction; inclusion requires a demonstrable, transaction-specific nexus. Certain bank charges (LC fees, SWIFT for cross-border payments, bank guarantees) can have direct nexus; general account maintenance fees typically do not.

Precedent treatment: The Court adopts a case-by-case narrow approach - only bank charges directly linked to the international transaction qualify as operational.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court analyzed the assessee's segmental accounts, digitally-signed classification, and found bank charges segregated into operational and non-operational components. Absent transaction-specific nexus, general bank charges are excluded. The TPO's blanket rejection was not justified.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio. The Court clarified the proper interpretive threshold for bank charges under Rule 10TA(j): nexus test and narrow construction.

Conclusion: Bank charges of Rs. 42,635/- classified as non-operating (lacking nexus) and excluded from PLI computation; TPO's inclusion set aside.

Issue iv - Validity of AE-wise Segmental Reporting

Legal framework: Segmental reporting may be acceptable where segments reflect real economic differences (distinct risks, resources, performance drivers); for transfer pricing FAR analysis, segmentation must have coherent strategic/business justification and reflect substantive differences.

Precedent treatment: The Court referred to general principles of meaningful segmentation and regulatory expectations that segments show real economic differences.

Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee's AE-wise segments were in the same geography, offering identical services with identical PLI margins and no strategic or operational differences. The Court viewed segmentation as artificial and primarily aimed at reducing costs allocated to AE transactions to inflate PLI. Where segments lack distinct FAR characteristics and appear contrived, segmentation cannot be accepted for transfer pricing benchmarking.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio. The Court held that artificial AE-wise segmentation with no functional or economic basis is not acceptable for computing PLI.

Conclusion: TPO's rejection of AE-wise segmentation upheld; assessee's segmentation claim rejected.

Issue v - Selection, Rejection and Addition of Comparables; Filters including Upper Turnover

Legal framework: Comparable selection is governed by FAR (functional, asset, risk) analysis and objective filters (turnover, export turnover, segmental data). Comparables should be excluded only for demonstrable lack of functional similarity; reliance solely on search-filter absence is insufficient. Use of appropriate lower and upper turnover filters is relevant to ensure comparability.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on prior coordinate bench decisions holding that (a) comparables meeting FAR and filters cannot be excluded merely because they do not appear in a revised search; (b) upper turnover filter must be applied if lower limit applied to avoid mismatch with large diversified firms; and (c) diversified/multi-segment entities providing BPO/KPO/testing/cloud etc. are not functionally comparable with captive SWD providers.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined each challenged comparable. For five comparables rejected by TPO though meeting FAR and filters, the TPO's reason - absence in search results - was held invalid; those comparables were directed to be included after verification. For two comparables (Macrosoft; Kireeti), evidence showed >75% export revenue and software development focus; TPO's rejection not valid. For the 9 large entities included by TPO, the Tribunal observed failure to apply an upper turnover filter rendered inclusion inappropriate given size/diversification differences; comparability compromised by valuable intangibles/diversified services. For four comparables where functional dissimilarity was demonstrated (Orion, Net4Nuts, Aptus, Consilient), the TPO's inclusion was properly resisted and exclusion sustained because their diversified offerings (BPO/KPO, testing, cloud, enterprise solutions) differ materially from captive SWD activity.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio as to principles: (a) comparables excluded only for lack of functional similarity; (b) absence from search output is not sole basis for exclusion if FAR & filters met; (c) upper turnover filter application is necessary where size/diversification mismatch would impair comparability.

Conclusions: Directives issued to TPO to recompute PLI including the five comparables wrongly rejected and the two additional comparables wrongly excluded; TPO directed to apply appropriate filters (including upper turnover) and exclude functionally dissimilar large/diversified comparables. Partial allowance of assessee's grounds accordingly.

Issue vi - Corporate Tax Rate under Section 115BBA/115BAA

Legal framework: Provisions governing optional concessional corporate tax regimes permit levy at specified rates subject to statutory eligibility and verification.

Precedent treatment: The Court applied the statutory scheme and directed verification by the Assessing Officer where facts permit.

Interpretation and reasoning: On the submissions, the Revenue did not oppose a direction to levy tax under the claimed concessional provision pending verification. The Tribunal directed the AO to levy corporate tax as per the invoked provision after necessary verification under law.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio (procedural direction). The Court's direction is binding for administrative compliance subject to statutory verification.

Conclusion: Ground allowed for statistical purposes - AO directed to levy corporate tax under the stated provision after verification.

---