AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 7,51,51,293 to the total income of the Appellant u/s 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. While doing so, the Ld. DRP /Ld. TPO /Ld. AO erred in: 2.1 rejecting the transfer pricing study which was maintained in good faith and with due diligence; 2.2 rejecting the search process followed by the Appellant and carrying out fresh comparability analysis for determining the ALP; 2.3 rejecting use of multiple year data; 2.4 using the data available at the time of assessment proceedings instead of that available as on the date of preparing the TP documentation; 2*5 rejecting, modifying and applying certain filters while undertaking the comparability analysis; 2.6 including following companies in the comparability analysis which are different from the Appellant in terms of the functions performed, asset used and risks assumed; a . RS Software (India) Ltd. b. Mindtree Ltd. c. Kals Information Systems Ltd. d. CG-Vak Software & Exports Ltd. e. Persistent Systems Ltd f. Infobeans Technologies Ltd. g. L&T Infotec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 25%. Additional Ground of appeal:- "8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. A.O. / TPO in not excluding companies which had related party transactions exceeding the tolerance limit of 15% during the year under consideration." 4. It is further submitted that on this issue the facts are already recorded and the TPO has applied the RTP filter of more than 25% and therefore, this ground may be admitted and adjudicated. Observing that the facts are already on record on this issue and the dispute is only with regard to the rate of RTP filter to be adopted, we deem it fit and proper to admit the ground and adjudicate as under:- 5. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the assessee does not wish to press the Grounds No.2.2 to 2.5 and 2.7 to 2.9, 4.1, 5 and Ground no.6. These grounds are accordingly rejected as not pressed. Grounds No.1 and 2.1 are general in nature and need no adjudication. 6. As regards Ground No.2.6, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that though the assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... working capital adjustment of 0.28%, the TPO arrived at the ALP of 19.68% and proposed the adjustment accordingly. In accordance with the said proposal, the A.O. passed a draft assessment order against which the assessee raised its objections before the DRP. The DRP, however, confirmed the draft assessment order and in accordance therewith, the final assessment order has been passed, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. As far as the additional ground is concerned, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has drawn our attention to page 6 of the TPO's order wherein the TPO has enumerated the filters adopted by the assessee and as to whether such filters are appropriate or otherwise. At item 8 of the table on page 6 of his order, the TPO has accepted that the companies having related party transactions of less than 25% of sales is an appropriate filter. However, while searching for comparables, he has not applied this filter. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to direct the TPO to consider the said filter while examining the comparability of the comparables challenged by the assessee before us. 10. The first company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Persistent Systems Limited is into both the software products, services and technology innovation; and the segmental details are not available. This is evident from the financials of Persistent Systems Limited and the report of the Director at page 918 of the paper book. At page 1039, it has been clearly mentioned that the Persistent Systems Limited is a global company specializing in software products, services and technology innovation. From the list of intangible assets at page 1051 of the paper book, we find that the assessee has been claiming depreciation both on tangible and intangible assets for the periods ending 31.03.2012 and 31.03.2013. From page 1059 of the paper book, we find that the final segmental results of each segment is not available and therefore, we are of the opinion that the TPO ought to have excluded this company from the final list of comparables. We find that in the case of PCIT vs. Cashedge India P Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 04/05/2016, has considered the TP study in the case of Cashedge India P Ltd for the A.Y. 2010-11 and the comparables therein and at para 6 of its order the Hon'ble High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in OPD which is different from software development services and the company earns revenue from software services, software products as well as BPO services and that though the breakup of revenue between the software services and BPO are available, the break up of Operating Cost (OC) and the net profitability between them are not available. In support of the contention that the said company should be excluded in such circumstances, Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the following decisions: (i) Agilis Information Technologies Intl. P. Ltd vs. ITO - ITA No. 1063/Del/2016 (ii) PCIT vs. Saxo India (P) Ltd - ITA No.682/2016 - Delhi High Court (iii) PCIT vs. Cashedge India P. Ltd vs. ITA 279/2016 (Delhi High Court) 15. Learned Departmental Representative, however, supported the orders of the authorities below. 16. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised its objections before the TPO but he held that it is functionally similar. We have gone through the annual reports of CGVAK Software & Exports Ltd and find that the said company is having revenue from both software s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al transactions are involved. This exercise does not compare with other income assessments where the methodology adopted in their domestic jurisdiction will differ". The TNMM method depends on accurate data with respect to all the three elements - wherever they apply. In the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method - which is premised upon the elements in Rule 1 OB(l )(a), the methodology adopted is the price charged or paid for property transfer or services provided in the Comparable Uncontrolled transaction. Therefore, the nature of the transaction and the appropriate filter determines the elements that are to be considered in TNMM. Therefore, the costs, sales and assets employed wherever relevant are to be applied. From this perspective, the revenue's contention that segmental data was available, cannot be accepted. The mere availability of proportion of the turnover allocable for software product sales per se cannot lead to an assumption that segmental data for relevant facts was available to determine the profitability of the concerned comparable." 19. Respectfully following the same, we direct the TPO / A.O. to exclude L & T Infotech from the final list of comparables....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital adjustment (WCA in short), the price received by the assessee within + /- 5% of the average margin of the comparables and therefore, no adjustment was proposed. Thereafter, he proceeded to consider the receivables at the end of the year and noticing that a sum of Rs. 21,96,43,078/- has been received after a considerable delay, proposed to charge interest thereon. He accordingly charged interest @ 14.75% p.a on the outstanding receivables. This, in the opinion of the Counsel for the assessee, is not warranted as this already got factored in the working capital adjustment allowed by the TPO. We have gone through the TP study of the assessee and also the TP order of the TPO. Though the A.O. has stated that the working capital adjustment is allowed, the working of such adjustment is not available on record and it is not evident that the margins of the assessee and the comparables are arrived at after such adjustment. The decisions relied upon by the Ld Counsel for the assessee support this contention. Though, we agree with the assessee's contention that no separate addition of interest on receivables is required after allowing work....