AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in which the Assessee seeks exclusion of a comparable chosen by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd., KALS INFOSYSTEMS LTD. the ground that this company does not accept the legally acceptable criteria for comparability. The Assessee has also stated in the application for raising additional ground that this company was not objected to as not comparable with that of the Assessee before the lower authorities but owing to subsequent judicial pronouncements on the issue in the case of identical companies engaged in the business of software development service taking a view that this company is not comparable with a software development service provider such as the Assessee, the Assessee now seeks exclusion of this company from the list of comparable companies. The Assessee places reliance on the decision of the Special Bench Chandigarh in the case of Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 307 (SB) (Chdg.) for the proposition that the taxpayer can reject a company selected by it in its TP study as not being comparable even if such a plea is raised for the first time before the Tribunal. The learned DR opposed the prayer for admission of additional g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. For the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done due to some mistakes on its part. 38. Accordingly, on facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that taxpayer is not estopped from pointing out that Datamatics has wrongly been taken as comparable. While admitting additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee to require us to consider whether or not Datamatics should be included in the comparable, we make no comments on merit except observing that assessee from record has shown its prima facie case. Further claim may be examined by the Assessing Officer. This course we adopt as objection to the inclusion of Datamatics as comparable has been raised now and not before revenue authorities. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration of claim of the taxpayer and make a de novo adjudication of the arm's length price after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly." 4. We also find that the aforesaid company was he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....55% 2.00 13 LGS Global Ltd (Lanco Global Solutions Ltd) 15.75% 45.39 14 Lucid Software Ltd 19.37% 1.70 15 Mediasoft Solutions Ltd 3.66% 1.85 16 Megasoft Ltd 60.23% 139.33 17 Mindtree Ltd 16.90% 590.35 18 Persistent Systems Ltd 24.52% 293.75 19 Quintegra Solutions Ltd 12.56% 62.72 20 R S Software (India) Ltd 13.47% 101.04 21 R Systems International Ltd (Seg.) 15.07% 112.01 22 S I P Technologies & Exports Ltd 13.90% 3.80 23 Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd (Seg.) 22.16% 343.57 24 Tata Elxsi Ltd (Seg.) 26.51% 262.58 25 Thirdware Solutions Ltd 25.12% 36.08 26 Wipro Ltd (Seg.) 33.65% 9616.09 Arithmetic Mean 25.14% Appellant's OP / TC for FY 2006-07 12.09% 7. The TPO finally passed an order u/s. 92CA of the Act and on the basis of the comparables set out above, arrived at arithmetic mean of 25.14%. After factoring the working capital adjustment of 0.97%, the adjusted arithmetic mean was determined at 24.17%. The computation of the ALP by the TPO in this regard was as follows:- "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s comparable companies listed at Sl.No.1,2,3 and 12 of the final list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO viz., M/S.Accel Transmatic Limited (seg.), Avani Cincom Technologies Ltd., Celestial labs Limited and KALS Infosystems Ltd., are concerned, this Tribunal in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT IT (TP) No.1086/Bang/2011 for AY 07-08 held that the aforesaid companies are not comparable companies in the case of software development services provider. The nature of services rendered by the Assessee in this appeal and the Assessee in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra) are one and the same. This fact would be clear from the fact that the very same 26 companies were chosen as comparable in the case of the Assessee as well as in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra). In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra) followed the decision rendered in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No.1064/Bang/2011 for AY 07-08 order dated 23.11.2012. The following were the relevant observations in the case of First A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igures were placed before us:- Particulars FYs 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Operating Revenue 21761611 35477523 29342809 28039851 Operating Expns. 16417661 23249646 23359186 31108949 Operating Profit 5343950 12227877 5983623 (3069098) Operating Margin 32.55% 52.59% 25.62% - 9.87% 40. It was submitted that this company has made unusually high profit during the financial year 06-07. The operating revenues increased 63.03% which indicates that it was an extraordinary year for this company. Even the growth of software industry for the previous year as per NASSCOM was 32%. The growth rate of this company was double the industry average. In view of the above, it was argued that this company ought to have been rejected as a comparable. 41. We have given a careful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the Assessee and are of the view that the same deserves to be accepted. The reasons given by the Assessee for excluding this company as comparable are found to be acceptable. The decision of ITAT (Mumbai) in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) also supports the plea of the assessee. We th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rative Institute, Department of Microbiology, Osmania University, Hyderabad. In the industrial biotechnology area, the company has signed the Technology transfer agreement with IMTECH CHANDIGARH (a very reputed CSIR organization) to manufacture and market initially two Enzymes, Alpha Amylase and Alkaline Protease in India and overseas. The company is planning to set up a biotechnology facility to manufacture industrial enzymes. This facility would also include the research laboratories for carrying out further R & D activities to develop new candidates' drug molecules and license them to Interested Pharma and Bio Companies across the GLOBE. The proposed Facility will be set up in Genome Valley at Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh.' According to the learned D.R. celestial labs is also in the field of research in pharmaceutical products and should be considered as comparable. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Assessee, the discovery is in relation to a software discovery of new drugs. Moreover the company also is owner of the IPR. There is however a reference to development of a molecule to treat cancer using bio-informatics tools for which patenting process was also be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess. In response to the request of the TPO this company in its reply dated 29.3.2010 has given details of employees working in software development but it is not clear as to whether any segmental data was given or not. Besides the above there is no other detail in the TPO's order as to the nature of software development services performed by the Assessee. Celestial labs had come out with a public issue of shares and in that connection issued Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) in which the business of this company was explained as to clinical research. The TPO wanted to know as to whether the primary business of this company is software development services as indicated in the annual report for FY 06-07 or clinical research and manufacture of bio products and other products as stated in the DRHP. There is no reference to any reply by Celestial labs to the above clarification of the TPO. The TPO without any basis has however concluded that the business mentioned in the DRHP are the services or businesses that would be started by utilizing the funds garnered though the Initial Public Offer (IPO) and thus in no way connected with business operations of the company during FY 06-07. We ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reful consideration to the submission made on behalf of the Assessee. We find that the TPO has drawn conclusions on the basis of information obtained by issue of notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. This information which was not available in public domain could not have been used by the TPO, when the same is contrary to the annual report of this company as highlighted by the Assessee in its letter dated 21.6.2010 to the TPO. We also find that in the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the Assessee, the Mumbai Bench of ITAT has held that this company was developing software products and not purely or mainly software development service provider. We therefore accept the plea of the Assessee that this company is not comparable. (e) Accel Transmatic Ltd. 48. With regard to this company, the complaint of the assessee is that this company is not a pure software development service company. It is further submitted that in a Mumbai Tribunal Decision of Capgemini India (F) Ltd v Ad. CIT 12 Taxman.com 51, the DRP accepted the contention of the assessee that Accel Transmatic should be rejected as comparable. The relevant observations of DRP as extracted by the ITAT in its order are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts, these companies are directed to be excluded from the list of comparables." 12. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid companies from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP. 13. As far as comparable companies listed at Sl.No.11 & 14 of the final list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO viz., M/S.Ishir Infotech Ltd. And Lucid Software Ltd., is concerned, this Tribunal in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT IT (TP) No.1086/Bang/2011 for AY 07-08 held that the aforesaid companies are not comparable companies in the case of software development services provider. The nature of services rendered by the Assessee in this appeal and the Assessee in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra) are one and the same. This fact would be clear from the fact that the very same 26 companies were chosen as comparable in the case of the Assessee as well as in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra). The following were the relevant observations in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra): ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessee as well as in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra). In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra) followed the decision rendered in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No.1064/Bang/2011 for AY 07-08 order dated 23.11.2012. The following were the relevant observations in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra): "27. As far as adoption of Mega Soft Ltd., as one of comparables, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there is an error in computing its net margin. He has drawn our attention to the order of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy EBusiness Software India Pvt.Ltd., at para 24 to 27 at page 18, wherein the error in computing the net margin of this company has been taken note of and it has been directed as under: "(a) Megasoft Ltd. : 24. This company was chosen as a comparable by the TPO. The objection of the assessee is that there are two segments in this company viz., (i) software development segment, and (ii) software product segment. The Assessee is a pure software services provider and not a so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of software service segment it is 23.11%. Both the segments are substantially different and therefore comparison at entity level is without basis and would vitiate the comparability (submissions on page 381 to 383 of the PB-I). It was further submitted that Megasoft Limited has provided segmental break-up between the software services segment and software product segment (page 68 of PB-II), which was also adopted by the TPO in his show cause notice (Page 84 of PB-I). The segmental results i.e., results pertaining to software services segment of this company was: Segmental Operating Revenues Rs.63,71,32,544 Segmental Operating Expenses Rs.51,75,13,211 Operating Profit Rs.11,96,19,333 OP/TC (PLI) 23.11% 26. It was reiterated that in the given circumstances only PLI of software service segment viz., 23.11% ought to have been selected for comparison. 27. It was further submitted that the learned TPO in case of other comparable, similarly placed, had adopted the margins of only the software service segment for comparability purposes. Consistent with such stand, it was submitted that the margins of the software segment only should be adopted in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imately Rs. 200 Crores. (iv) This company has a revenue sharing agreement towards acquisition of IPR in AUTOLAY, a commercial software product used in designing high performance structural systems. (v) The assessee also placed reliance on the following judicial decisions :- (a) ITAT, Delhi Bench decision in the case of Agnity India Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.3856/Del/2010) and (b) Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1054/Bang/2011) 12.3 Per contra, opposing the contentions of the assessee, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that comparability cannot be decided merely on the basis of scale of operations and the operating margins of this company have not been extraordinary. In view of this, the learned Departmental Representative supported the decision of the TPO to include this company in the list of comparable companies. 12.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidence to establish that this company is functionally dis-similar and different from the assessee and hence is not comparable and the finding rendered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inancial statements of Wipro with the stand alone financials of the assessee; which is not an appropriate comparison. 13.4.2 We also find that this company owns intellectual property in the form of registered patents and several pending applications for grant of patents. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.227/Bang/2010) has held that a company owning intangibles cannot be compared to a low risk captive service provider who does not own any such intangible and hence does not have an additional advantage in the market. As the assessee in the case on hand does not own any intangibles, following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e. 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that this company cannot be considered as a comparable to the assessee. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to omit this company from the set of comparable companies in the case on hand for the year under consideration. 14.0 (6) Tata Elxsi Ltd. 14.1 This company was a comparable selected by the TPO. Before the TPO, the assessee had objected to the inclusion of this company in the set of comparab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be excluded from the list of comparable portion." As can be seen from the extracts of the Annual Report of this company produced before us, the facts pertaining to Tata Elxsi have not changed from Assessment Year 2007-08 to Assessment Year 2008-09. We, therefore, hold that this company is not to be considered for inclusion in the set of comparables in the case on hand. It is ordered accordingly." 18. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid companies from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP. 19. As far as comparable companies at Sl.No.5, 18, 19 and 25 of the final list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO are concerned, viz., M/S. E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Quintegra Solutions Limited and Third ware Solutions Ltd., this Tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. I.T (T.P) A. No.1303/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) order dated 28.11.2013 was pleased to hold that the aforesaid companies are not comparable with a company engaged in Software Development Services such as the Assessee. The following were the relevant observatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluded this company in the list of comparbales only on the basis of the statement made by the company in its reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. It appears that the TPO has not examined the services rendered by the company to give a finding whether the services performed by this company are similar to the software development services performed by the assessee. From the details on record, we find that while the assessee is into software development services, this company i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd., is rendering product development services and high end technical services which come under the category of KPO services. It has been held by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Capital I-Q Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. Supra) that KPO services are not comparable to software development services and are therefore not comparable. Following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the aforesaid case, we hold that this company, i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd. be omitted from the set of comparables for the period under consideration in the case on hand. The A.O. /TPO is accordingly directed. 15. Thirdware Solutions Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal (supra), we direct that this company be omitted from the list of comparables for the period under consideration in the case on hand." "17. Persistent Systems Ltd. 17.1.1 This company was selected by the TPO as a comparable. The assessee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable for the reasons that this company being engaged in software product designing and analytic services, it is functionally different and further that segmental results are not available. The TPO rejected the assessee's objections on the ground that as per the Annual Report for the company for Financial Year 2007-08, it is mainly a software development company and as per the details furnished in reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act, software development constitutes 96% of its revenues. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer included this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., in the list of comparables as it qualified the functionality criterion. 17.1.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable submitting that this company is functionally different and also that there are several other factors on which this company ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the inclusion of this company in the set of comparables on the ground that this company is functionally different and also that there were peculiar economic circumstances in the form of acquisitions made during the year. The TPO rejected the assessee's objections holding that this company qualifies all the filters applied by the TPO. On the issue of acquisitions, the TPO rejected the assessee's objections observing that the assessee has not adduced any evidence as to how this event had an any influence on the pricing or the margin earned. 18.1.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company for the reason that it is functionally different and also that there are other factors for which this company cannot be considered as a comparable. It was submitted that, (i) Quintegra solutions Ltd., the company under consideration, is engaged in product engineering services and not in purely software development services. The Annual Report of this company also states that it is engaged in preparatory software products and is therefore not similar to the assessee in the case on hand. (ii) In its Annual Report, the services rendered by the company are described ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of its IPRs. Having applied for trade mark registration of its products, it evidences the fact that this company owns intangible assets. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.227/Bang/2010 dt.9.11.2012) has held that if a company possesses or owns intangibles or IPRs, then it cannot be considered as a comparable company to one that does not own intangibles and requires to be omitted form the list of comparables, as in the case on hand. 18.3.2 We also find from the Annual Report of Quintegra Solutions Ltd. that there have been acquisitions made by it in the period under consideration. It is settled principle that where extraordinary events have taken place, which has an effect on the performance of the company, then that company shall be removed from the list of comparables. 18.3.3 Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we direct that this company i.e. Quintegra Solutions Ltd. be excluded from the list of comparables in the case on hand since it is engaged in proprietary software products and owns its own intangibles unlike the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss of sale of software products and the business of software services, and therefore, it was not appropriate to adopt the application software segment of the said concern for the purposes of comparability with the assessee's IT-Services Segment. The TPO however, noticed that though the application software segment of the said concern may be engaged in selling of some of the software products which are developed by it, however, the said concern was not into trading of software products as there were no cost of purchases debited in the Profit & Loss Account. Though the TPO agreed that the quantum of revenue from sale of products was not available as per the financial statements of the said concern, but as the basic function of the said concern was software development, it was includible as it was functionally comparable to the assessee's segment of IT-Services. 18. Before us, apart from reiterating the points raised before the TPO and the DRP, the Ld. Counsel submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment year of 2006-07, the said concern was evaluated by the assessee and was found functionally incomparable. For the said purpose, our reference has been invited to pages 421 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in support. Considered in the aforesaid light, on the basis of the discussion in relation to KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg), in the instant case also we find that the said concern is liable to be excluded from the list of comparables." 22. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid company from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP. 23. The ld. counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that out of the 26 comparable companies chosen by the TPO, the following companies will have to be excluded as the turnover of these companies are more than Rs. 200 crores and cannot be compared with the Assessee whose turnover is less than Rs. 20 crores: (1) Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. 848.66 crores (2) iGate Global Solutions Ltd. 747.27 crores (3) Mindtree Ltd. 590.39 crores (4) Persistent Systems Ltd. 293.74 crores (5) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. 343.57 crores (6) Tata Elxsi Ltd. 262.58 crores (7) Wipro Ltd. 9616.09 crores (8) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 13149 crores 24. Our attention was drawn to the observations of the Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or in proportion to the activities of the parties might affect the relative competitive positions of the buyer and seller and therefore comparability." 12. The ICAI TP Guidelines note on this aspect lay down in para 15.4 that a transaction entered into by a Rs. 1,000 crore company cannot be compared with the transaction entered into by a Rs. 10 crore company. The two most obvious reasons are the size of the two companies and the relative economies of scale under which they operate. The fact that they operate in the same market may not make them comparable enterprises. The relevant extract is as follows [on Rule 10B(3)]: "Clause (i) lays down that if the differences are not material, the transactions would be comparable. These differences could either be with reference to the transaction or with reference to the enterprise. For instance, a transaction entered into by a Rs. 1,000 crore company cannot be compared with the transaction entered into by a Rs. 10 crore company. The 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 re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion for the purpose of making TP study." 15. It was brought to our notice that the above proposition has also been followed by the Honourable Bangalore ITAT in the following cases: 1. M/s Kodiak Networks (India) Private Limited Vs. ACIT (ITA No.1413/Bang/2010) 2. M/s Genesis Microchip (I) Private Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.1254/Bang/20l0). 3. Electronic for Imaging India Private Limited (ITA No. 1171/Bang/2010). It was finally submitted that companies having turnover more than Rs. 200 crores ought to be rejected as not comparable with the Assessee. 16. The ld. DR, on the other hand pointed out that even the assessee in its own TP study has taken companies having turnover of more than Rs. 200 crores as comparables. In these circumstances, it was submitted by him that the assessee cannot have any grievance in this regard. 17. We have considered the rival submissions. The provisions of the Act and the Rules that are relevant for deciding the issue have to be 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 tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or document in his possession, of the opinion that- (a) the price charged or paid in an international transaction has not been determined in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2); or (b) any information and document relating to an international transaction have not been kept and maintained by the assessee in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 92D and the rules made in this behalf; or (c) the information or data used in computation of the arm's length price is not reliable or correct; or (d) the assessee has failed to furnish, within the specified time, any information or document which he was required to furnish by a notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm's length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available 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 intern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail. (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if- (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid in, or the profit arising from, such transactions in the open market; or (ii) reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences. (4) The data to be used in analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction shall be the data relating to the financial year in which the international transaction has been entered into : Provided that data relating to a period not being more than two years prior to such financial year may also be considered 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 wit....