TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the assessment order. 2. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has contested various filters, parameters and selection of comparable companies. Ld. CIT(A) after considering them in detail, however, found that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Addl. DIT(TP) and accordingly, he rejected the contentions and TP adjustments. 3. Assessee had raised the following two grounds in its appeal: "2. The A.O. erred in adding an amount of Rs. 1,66,75,628/- as adjustment u/s. 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The TPO erred in determining the adjustment u/s. 92CA(3) at Rs. 1,66,75,628/- when in reality there was no such variance in the cross border transactions by the assessee with its associated enterprises". 4. Ld. Counsel at the outset submitted that TPO has selected 26 companies as comparables and out of them assessee has no objection for the first twelve companies. With regard to the balance 14 companies, the comparables selected by the TPO and objected to by assessee are in fact adjudicated by many of the Co-ordinate Benches. The details submitted were as under: S. No Company Name Sale (Rs. Cr.) OP to Total Cost % Considered in Cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ltd., Vs. ACIT [154 ITD 109] * Intoto Software India Private Ltd., Vs. ACIT [146 ITD 360] * NTT Data India Enterprises Application Services (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [157 ITD 897] * Four Soft Pvt. Limited Vs. DCIT [149 ITD 732] * M/s. Triology E-Business Software India Private Ltd., Vs. DCIT [140 ITD 540] * Curam Software International (P) Ltd., Vs. ITO [149 ITD 458] * App Labs Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT [149 ITD 99] 5. Ld. DR while reiterating the contentions of the TPO, fairly admitted that many of the comparables are examined in the above said cases. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities. As can be seen from the orders the TPO has selected as many as 26 comparables in his study and proposed the adjustment. Even though assessee has raised many contentions before the Ld. CIT(A) about various filters etc., before us, Ld. Counsel restricted his objections to only selection of certain comparables which are already adjudicated as not comparable companies in similar cases. Assessee has no objection for the following comparables out of the 26 companies selected by the TPO. S. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Infotech Ltd; 4. Ludic Software Limited; 5. Megasoft Ltd; 6. Tata Elxsi Limited; 7. Wipro Limited; 8. Accel Transmatic Ltd; 9. Kals Information Systems Limited; 10. Flextronics Software Limited; 11. Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd The relevant order pertaining to the above comparables is as under: "5. We have heard the learned counsel and the Learned Departmental Representative. Learned Departmental Representative also placed on record written objections on the contentions raised by the assessee and we also perused the paper-book placed on record running to 809 pages. 6. At the outset, it has been fairly admitted that the comparables objected to in the list from Sl. Nos. 14 to 24 were already considered by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of United Online Software Development India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1658/Hyd/2011 vide its order dated 24.9.,2015 for assessment year 2007-08. Learned counsel submitted that the assessee has raised the same objections with reference to the above comparables and requested for exclusion of the said companies taken as comparables Rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e treated as comparable as this company is also into product development. As segmental details of operating income of software development services and sale of software products are not available, it could not be ascertained whether the profit ratio of this company can be taken into consideration for comparing with Assessee. As the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench pertained to the same assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2007-08, following the same, we hold that this company cannot be treated as comparable to Assessee. Other cases considered the same comparable and rejected are as under: a) M/s. Foursoft Limited (ITA.No.1903/H/2011) b) M/s. Conexant System India P. Ltd. ITA.1978/H2011 c) Intoto Software India P. Ltd. ITA.2102/H/2010 d) Telcordia Technologies India P. Ltd. ITA.7821/Mum/2011 e) Triology E-Business Solutions ITA.No.1054/Bang /2011 f) Bearing Point Business ITA.No.1124/Bang/2011 g) LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd. ITA.No.1121/Bang/2011 h) Transwitch India P. Ltd. ITA.No.948/Bang/2011 i) Mercedes Benz Research & Development ITA.No.1222/Bang/2011 j) CSR India P. Ltd. ITA.No.1119/Bang/2011 k) First Advantage ITA.No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctivities and owning of intangibles. As can be seen from the TP order, the turnovers of Infosys Technologies Limited during the year under consideration are Rs. 13,149 crores as against Rs. 42 crores of Assessee. Though it is a fact that Assessee in the TP documentation, has selected Infosys Technologies Ltd. as comparable but that cannot prevent Assessee from objecting to the aforesaid company being selected as comparable, if there are valid reasons for doing so. In this context, the contention of the learned AR that Assessee has selected Infosys Limited on the basis of three years financial data, whereas the TPO considered only the current year data also needs to be appreciated. Therefore, considering the enormity of turnover of the company as well as other relevant factors, the aforesaid company cannot be treated as comparable to Assessee in any manner. This view of ours is also in tune with the view expressed by different Benches of this Tribunal as stated below as well as that of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,[2013] 85 CCH 146. a) M/s. Foursoft Limited (ITA.No.1903/H/2011) b) M/s. Conexant System India P. Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le of products and software services are not available. Further following cases also considered the above company and excluded the same on same reason. a) M/s. Foursoft Limited (ITA.No.1903/H/2011) b) Intoto Software India P. Ltd. ITA.2102/H/2010 c) Telcordia Technologies India P. Ltd. ITA.No.7821/Mum/2011 c) LG Soft India P. Ltd. ITA.1121/Bang/2011 d) Transwitch India P. Ltd. ITA.948/Bang/2011 f) Mercedes Benz Research & Development ITA.No.1222/Bang/2011 g) CSR India P. Ltd. ITA.No.1119/Bang/2011 h) First Advantage ITA.No.1086/Bang/2012 i) HCL EAI Services Ltd. ITA.No.1348/Bang/2011. Following the aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Benches, we direct exclusion of the aforesaid company from list of comparables. MEGASOFT LIMITED : 7.5. The main objection of Assessee with regard to the aforesaid company is that this is predominantly a product development company and margin from software development services is 23.11%. As can be seen, in case of M/s Virtusa (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while considering Assessee's objection with regard to the aforesaid company ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions of both the parties and perused the material on record. In case of Telcordia Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 7821/Mum/2011, the ITAT Mumbai Bench while considering the comparability of the aforesaid company with software services provider held as under: "7.7 From the facts and material on record and submissions made by the learned AR, it is seen that the Tata Elxsi is engaged in development of niche product and development services, which is entirely different from Assessee company. We agree with the contention of the learned AR that the nature of product developed and services provided by this company are different from Assessee as have been narrated in para 6.6 above. Even the segmental details for revenue sales have not been provided by the TPO so as to consider it as a comparable party for comparing the profit ratio from product and services. Thus, on these facts, we are unable to treat this company fit for comparability analysis for determining the arms length price for Assessee, hence, should be excluded from the list of comparable parties. " Following the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench as aforesaid and also considering the fact that the comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fitability, therefore, cannot be compared with Assessee company at all. There are several judgments of ITAT which have been referred in para 6.5 above, that Wipro cannot be taken as comparable case for comparable case with the company like assessee. In view of these facts and the reasoning given in the case of Infosys, we hold that Wipro also cannot be considered as a comparability analysis, hence, would not be included in the list of the comparable entities as identified by the TPO." 7.7.3. As can be seen from the facts and materials on record during the year under consideration, the segmental turnover of the Wipro Ltd. Is 9616.09 crores. Therefore, considering the turnover, brand value as well as other dynamics of Wipro Ltd., it comes in the same category as Infosys and certainly cannot be compared with Assessee. Therefore, following our reasoning in case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. And other coordinate bench decisions, we hold that Wipro Ltd. cannot be treated as comparable with Assessee. ACCEL TRANSMATIC LTD. : 7.8. With regard to this company, the complaint of Assessee is that this company is not a pure software development service company. It is fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited is concerned, learned Counsel for Assessee submitted that it is functionally different from Assessee. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for Assessee relied upon the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case M/s. Trilogy EBusiness Software India Private Limited (supra) wherein at paras 46 and 47 of its order, the Tribunal has discussed the functional dissimilarity with Assessee therein and has directed that the company should be excluded from the list of comparables. Similarly, the Tribunal at Bangalore in the case of M/s. HCL EAI Services Ltd. vs. DCIT IT(TP) A. No. 1348/ Bang/2011 at para 17 at pages 24 to 26 of its order has discussed at length the reasons for not considering the said company as comparable to software development services company. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder : (d) KALS Information Systems Ltd. 46. As far as this company is concerned, the contention of Assessee is that the aforesaid company has revenues from both software development and software products. Besides the above, it was also pointed out that this company is engaged in providing training. It was also submitted that as per the an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Bang/2011 as well as M/s. Trilogy E-Business Solutions ITA.No.1054/Bang/2011 are into software development services to its parent companies. Assessee is also into similar type of activity. Therefore, the decision taken in M/s. Trilogy E-Business Software India Private Limited as well as M/s. HCL EAI Services Ltd. to exclude Kals Information Systems Ltd. applies to the facts of the case before us also. Similar view has been expressed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the following cases : a) M/s. Conexant System India P. Ltd. ITA.No.1978/Hyd/2011. b) Intoto Software India P. Ltd. ITA.2102/H/2010 c) Bearing Point Business ITA.No.1124/Bang/2011 d) LG Soft India P. Ltd. ITA.1121/Bang/2011 e) Transwitch India P. Ltd. ITA.948/Bang/2011 f) CSR India P. Ltd. ITA.No.1119/Bang/2011 g) First Advantage ITA.No.1086/Bang/2012 Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Benches (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude the company from the list of comparables." 18. Similarly, as contended by the learned counsel for Assessee comparable nature of Flextronics Software Systems Ltd.(Seg) and Helio & Matheson I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other cases do apply to Assessee as TPO selected same 26 comparables in all the cases relied on and decided earlier in various cases. " 19. Further, as per the chart furnished before us, similar view has been taken by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in similar matters, wherein comparable nature of above eleven companies has come up for consideration, such as- (a) M/s. Axsys Healthcare Ltd. (ITA No.2076/hyd/2011) (b) M/s.Virtusa (I) P. Ltd. (ITA No.1962/Hyd/2011) (c) M/s. Contexant System India Pvt. Ltd.(ITA Nos.1978/Hyd/2011) (d) Intoto Software India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.2102/Hyd/2010) (e) Triology E Business Solutions (ITA No.1054/Bang/2011) (f) Telcordia Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.7821/Mum/2011) (g) LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1121/Bang/2011) (h) Transwitch India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.948/Bang/2011) (i) Mercedes Benz Research & Development (ITA No.1222/Bang- -/2011) (j) CSR India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1119/Bang/2011) (k) First Advantage (ITA No.1086/Bang/2012) (l) HCL EAI Services Ltd. (ITA No.1348/Bang/2011) (m) Adaptee (India ) Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No.180....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal in the case of Teva Pharma Private Ltd. v. Addl. CIT - ITA No.6623/Mum/2011 (for AY 2007-08) in which the comparability of this company for clinical trial research segment. The relevant extract of discussion regarding this company is as follows: "The learned D.R. however drew our attention to page-389 of the paper book which is an extract from the Directors report which reads as follows: 'The Company has developed a de novo drug design tool "CELSUITE" to drug discovery in, finding the lead molecules for drug discovery and protected the IPR by filing under the copy if sic (of) right/patent act. (Apprised and funded by Department of Science and Technology New Delhi) based on our insilico expertise (applying bio- informatics tools). The Company has developed a molecule to treat Leucoderma and multiple cancer and protected the IPR by filing the patent. The patent details have been discussed with Patent officials and the response is very favorable. The cloning and purification under wet lab procedures are under progress with our collaborative Institute, Department of Microbiology, Osmania University, Hyderabad. In the industrial biotechnology area, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this company was classified as a Research and Development company. According to the TPO in AY 07-08 this company has been classified as software development service provider in the Capitaline/Prowess database as well as in the annual report of this company. The TPO has relied on the response from this company to a notice u/s.133(6) of the Act in which it has said that it is in the business of providing software development services. The Assessee in reply to the proposal of the AO to treat this as a comparable has pointed out that this company provides software products/services as well as bioinformatics services and that the segmental data for each activity is not available and therefore this company should not be treated as comparable. Besides the above, the Assessee has point out to several references in the annual report for 31.3.2007 highlighting the fact that this company was develops biotechnology products and provides related software development services. The TPO called for segmental data at the entity level from this company. The TPO also called for description of software development process. In response to the request of the TPO this company in its reply dated 29.3.2010....