TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue's delay of 338 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. (ii) Whether, in the software development services segment, the exclusion of CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Tech Mahindra Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd., and the inclusion of Spry Resources India Pvt. Ltd., was justified. (iii) Whether, in the ITeS segment, Hartron Communications Ltd., Capgemini Business Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Infosys BPO Ltd. were rightly excluded. (iv) Whether negative working capital adjustment could be applied against a captive cost-plus service provider. (v) Whether the assessee's plea for inclusion of Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. and Informed Technologies India Ltd. required fresh adjudication.
Issue: Whether the Revenue's delay of 338 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Analysis: The delay was supported by an affidavit explaining administrative pendency and time-bound litigation work. A liberal approach was applied in condonation matters, and there was no material showing mala fides or deliberate inaction.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the Revenue's appeal was admitted.
Issue: Whether, in the software development services segment, the exclusion of CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Tech Mahindra Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd., and the inclusion of Spry Resources India Pvt. Ltd., was justified.
Analysis: CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd. was found to have mixed software and BPO activities, no reliable segmental data, abnormal profit growth and an entrepreneurial profile. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. was found to possess significant intangibles, brand value and a materially different risk profile. Tech Mahindra Ltd. suffered from reliance on consolidated data, high related party transactions, extraordinary events and unreliable margin computation. Persistent Systems Ltd. was engaged in product development, IP-led and R&D-intensive activities, with acquisitions and functional differences. Mindtree Ltd. was accepted as rightly excluded on turnover and scale considerations. Spry Resources India Pvt. Ltd. was held to be not excludable merely for high receivables, since receivables affect working capital but not functional comparability.
Conclusion: The exclusions of the contested comparables were upheld and Spry Resources India Pvt. Ltd. was rightly directed to be included.
Issue: Whether, in the ITeS segment, Hartron Communications Ltd., Capgemini Business Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Infosys BPO Ltd. were rightly excluded.
Analysis: Hartron Communications Ltd. showed abnormal growth in its BPO segment and unreliable segment results, making its margins unsuitable for benchmarking. Capgemini Business Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. failed the related party transactions filter once the full related party profile was considered. Infosys BPO Ltd. was a large, brand-driven, diversified and risk-bearing enterprise with a materially different functional and economic profile, and it also failed the export revenue filter.
Conclusion: The exclusions of all three ITeS comparables were upheld.
Issue: Whether negative working capital adjustment could be applied against a captive cost-plus service provider.
Analysis: Working capital adjustment is meant to neutralise differences in receivables, payables and inventory, not to load an additional margin on a risk-insulated captive service provider. Where the assessee operates on a cost-plus basis for its AEs and does not bear working capital risk, a negative adjustment is inappropriate.
Conclusion: Negative working capital adjustment was held to be impermissible in the facts of the case.
Issue: Whether the assessee's plea for inclusion of Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. and Informed Technologies India Ltd. required fresh adjudication.
Analysis: The first appellate authority had not recorded a finding on these comparables despite specific objections and supporting material. Since inclusion of comparables requires verification of functional profile, filters, segmental data and margins, the matter required factual reconsideration.
Conclusion: The issue was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh examination and was allowed for statistical purposes.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the transfer pricing relief failed, while the assessee obtained limited remand relief on two comparables; the matter was otherwise sustained on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing, comparability must be tested on functional profile, assets and risks, and a captive cost-plus service provider should not suffer a negative working capital adjustment where it does not bear working capital risk.
TaxTMI 
