Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2015 (6) TMI 723

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of ALP by the TPO and addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment was a sum of Rs. 2,36,04,205. The CIT(A) gave partial relief to the Assessee. Aggrieved by the relief allowed by the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in not applying certain filters while choosing comparable companies the Assessee has filed C.O. 3. The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sunquest US and it works as a contract software development service provider. The Assessee develops software and provides support services to Sunquest US and Misys Physicians Systems LLC (both are Associated Enterprises), which enable physicians, hospitals and medical practitioners to effectively manage the complexities in healthcare services. The Assessee is remunerated on a cost plus basis for the software development and support services it provides to its AEs. 4. During the financial year 2004-05 relevant to the assessment year 2005- 06, the only international transaction that took place between the Assessee and its AEs was provision of software development and support services at a price of Rs. 20,88,57,270/-. 5. In support of the assessee's claim tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2CA Rs. 2,36,04,205 ...................The difference of Rs. 2,36,04,205/- as determined above is the transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA." 8. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee. The following were the key findings of the CIT(A):- (i) Out of the 17 companies chosen by the TPO as the final set of comparable companies, the CIT(A) excluded 10 companies for the reason that these companies had related party transaction. The CIT(A) applied the filter of related party transaction by holding that to be chosen as a comparable company, the comparable companies should not have any related party transaction. Therefore even if there is a single related party transaction, the said companies were excluded from the list of comparable companies. By doing so, the CIT(A) could retain only 7 out of the final 17 comparable companies chosen by the TPO, viz., Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., Lanco Global System Ltd., Sankhya Infotech Ltd., Exensys Software Solution Ltd., and Visual Soft Technology Ltd. In coming to the above conclusion, the CIT(A) followed the decisions of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT (20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "(2) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that all companies having related party transactions ought to be excluded as comparables irrespective of the percentage of related party transactions. (3) The ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that profit on cost of more than 50% of the comparable company(ies) is abnormal without giving reasons how functions discharged, assets deployed and risks assumed of such companies were different from that of the appellant company. (4) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the size, turnover and brand of the company are deciding factors for treating a company as a comparable, and accordingly erred in excluding M/S.Infosys Technologies Ltd., as a comparable. (5) The CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessee is eligible for a standard deduction of 5% from the arm's length price under the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 12. The grounds raised in the cross objection are as follows (Ground No.1 is general hence not reproduced):- "(2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in not entirely deleting the adjustment to the arm's length price made by the learned Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) amounting to Rs. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arty transaction filter. The filter of companies dealing in software products and abnormal profits owing to amalgamation of the companies during the relevant period thereby showing abnormal profits was applied to exclude Exensys Software solutions Ltd. Infosys Technologies Ltd., was excluded for reasons of high turnover and high risk profile. Satyam Computer Services Ltd., has to be excluded from the comparable companies for non-reliability of financial data as it was involved in financial scam. In doing so, the CIT(A) followed the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Agnity India Technologies v. ITO (ITA 3856/DeI/2010) and SAP India Pvt. Ltd v. ITO [ITA No. 398/8/2008]. Therefore the grievance as projected by the Revenue in ground No.3 is misconceived. On the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the CIT(A) rightly excluded Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd., and Satyam Computers Ltd., from the list of comparable companies. 15. As regards ground No.4 raised by the revenue, the CIT(A) followed the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case of Agnity India Technologies v. ITO (ITA 3856/DeI/2010) in coming to the conclusion that Infosys Technologie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the business of development of software products & services and training. The company focuses on the development of niche products for the transport and aviation industry. However, segmental information in relation to the above mentioned activities is not available in public domain. Therefore, as Sankhya engages itself in products and services as well as software training, it cannot be considered as a comparable of the Appellant. The products developed and owned by Sankhya are listed below: (1) SILICONTM Training Suite of Products: The products are a comprehensive enterprise wide training platform that covers the entire spectrum of training in a paperless environment. It comprises of four products:-  - SILICONTM LMS (Training Management Information  - SILICONTM QT (Online Assessment System)  - SILICONTM LCMS (Learning Content Management System)  - IRMAQTM : This is an integrated resource planning, management tracking system exclusively developed for Airline operations. It is an end-toend solution for all Flight Operations.  - Sakai CLE : This is a widely used and popular open source LMS used in many leading educational institutions and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he relevant observations:- "15.4. FOURSOFT LIMITED : This comparable is objected on the same reason as this company is involved in product development and owns products namely 4S eTrans and 4S eLog. These products are used in Sun Microsystems Inc, in an Application Verification Kit Certified for Enterprises and assessee have been investing continuously on product developments. Since assessee is in the product development, having I.P. rights, the same is not comparable. 15.5. THIRDWARE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LIMITED : This company is objected to by the assessee on the reason that the said Thirdware Software Solutions Ltd. is engaged in sale of software licence and related services and not a service provider. Referring to the annual report, it was submitted that this comparable was rejected by the ITAT, Pune in the case of Egain Communications Ltd. This company having revenue from product license and earning extraordinary profit due to intangible owns. 15.6. These three comparable above Flextronics Software Limited, Foursoft Limited and Thirdware Software Solution Limited were analysed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Intoto Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies which are into both the product development as well as software development service provider as comparables unless the segmental details are available. Even if he has adopted the filter of more than 75% of the revenue from the software services for selecting a comparable company, he ought to have taken the segmental results of the software services only. The percentage of expenditure towards the development of software products may differ from company to company and also it may not be proportionate to the sales from the sale of software products. Under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, the TPO has the power to call for the necessary details from the comparable companies. It is seen that the Assessing Officer/TPO as exercised this power to call for details with regard to the various companies. As seen from the annual report of Foursoft Limited which is reproduced at page 7 of the TPO's Order, the said company has derived income from software licence also and AMCs. 25. As far as Thirdware Software Solution Limited is concerned, we find from the information furnished by the said company that though the said company is also into product development, there are no software products ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lxsi operating two segments -system communication services and software development services. The TPO accepted the software development services segment in his T.P. analysis and assessee's objection is that the software development services segment itself comprises of three subservices namely (a) product design services (b)design engineering services and (c) visual computing labs. It was submitted that these services are not akin to assessee software services and segmental information of only product design services could have been accepted by the TPO as a comparable but not the entire software development service. Since company's operations are functionally different as such, the same is not comparable. Further, assessee is also objecting on the basis of intangible scale of operations. The coordinate bench in the case of Intoto (supra) considered the issue as under in para 22: "22 Tata Elxsi Limited : As regards this company, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, filed before us the reply of Tata Elxsi Limited to the Addl. CIT (Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad, wherein the concerned Officer has been informed that Tata Elxsi Limited is specialised Embedded Softwar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....si Ltd., should be excluded from the list of comparable companies. 31. In the chart filed before us the learned counsel for the Assessee has submitted that four of the comparable companies viz., I gate Global Solutions Ltd., Flextronics Software Systems Ltd., L & T Infotech Ltd. and Infosys Ltd., will have to be rejected applying the upper limit of Rs. 200 crores turnover in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. ITA No.1054/Bang/2011. 32. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee and the learned DR. In the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India (P) Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal on application of the turnover filter while selecting comparable companies for comparability analysis held as follows:- "(1) Turnover Filter 11. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the TPO has applied a lower turnover filter of Rs. 1 crore, but has not chosen to apply any upper turnover limit. In this regard, it was submitted by him that under rule 10B(3) to the Income-tax Rules, it was necessary for comparing an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction that there should not be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e two most obvious reasons are the size of the two companies and the relative economies of scale under which they operate." 13. It was further submitted that the TPO's range (Rs. 1 crore to infinity) has resulted in selection of companies like Infosys which is 277 times bigger than the Assessee (turnover of Rs. 13,149 crores as compared to Rs. 47.47 crores of Assessee). It was submitted that an appropriate turnover range should be applied in selecting comparable uncontrolled companies. 14. Reference was made to the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Genesis Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010, wherein relying on Dun and Bradstreet's analysis, the turnover of Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 200 crores was held to be proper. The following relevant observations were brought to our notice:-  "9. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions and also the judicial precedents on the issue, we find that the TPO himself has rejected the companies which .ire (sic) making losses as comparables. This shows that there is a limit for the lower end for identifying the comparables. In such a situation, we are unable to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....first seen. Sec.92. of the Act provides that any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm's length price. Sec.92-B provides that "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are nonresidents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to any one or more of such enterprises. Sec.92- A defines what is an Associated Enterprise. In the present case there is no dispute that the transaction between the Assessee and its AE was an international transaction attracting the provisions of Sec.92 of the Act. Sec.92C provides the manner of computation of Arm's length price in an international transaction and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able with him:" 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm's length price under section 92C:- "10B. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :- (a)....... to (d)........ (e) transactional net margin method, by which,- (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction entered into with an associated enterprise is computed in relation to costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed or to be employed by the enterprise or having regard to any other relevant base; (ii) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise or by an unrelated enterprise from a comparable uncontrolled transaction or a number of such transactions is computed having regard to the same base; (iii) the net profit margin referred to in subclause (ii) arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions is adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable unco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red if such data reveals facts which could have an influence on the determination of transfer prices in relation to the transactions being compared." 19. A reading of the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules shows that uncontrolled transaction has to be compared with international transaction having regard to the factors set out therein. Before us there is no dispute that the TNMM is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP of the international transaction. The disputes are with regard to the comparability of the comparable relied upon by the TPO. 20. In this regard we find that the provisions of law pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee as well as the decisions referred to by the ld. counsel for the assessee clearly lay down the principle that the turnover filter is an important criteria in choosing the comparables. The assessee's turnover is Rs. 47,46,66,638. It would therefore fall within the category of companies in the range of turnover between 1 crore and 200 crores (as laid down in the case of Genesis Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010) . Thus, companies having turnover of more than 200 crores have to be eliminat....