AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by the AO. During the year under consideration, the appellant was engaged in providing technical support, back office support and market support services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The dispute here is the following international transactions the appellant had with its AEs : Sr. No. Description of the transactions Total value of transactions (Rs.) 1. Provision of technical services 87,335,044/- 2. Provision of back-office support services 76,455,489/- In technical support service segment, the arm's length price (ALP) for rendering services was determined to be at 16.96% as against 5.44% received by the appellant. The appellant suo motu computed the ALP at 16% under technical support services. Accordingly, it exercised its option as per proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act and voluntarily offered the difference for tax. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) disagreed with the transfer pricing methodology adopted by the appellant and rejected some of the comparable companies selected by the appellant and added a few comparables selected by him. The final set of comparables selected by the TPO is as under : Sr. No. Comparables Selec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... found that the company is engaged in the provision of seismic data acquisition and it provides 2D and 3D seismic services including data acquisition, processing and interpretation. Further, the profit and loss account of the company reflects that the whole operating income of the company is from seismic survey and related service. It is also stated that the company's business consists of one reportable and geographical segment of seismic data acquisition and its related service within India. Thus it is stated that Alphageo segment should be rejected because it is functionally different from the appellant's business of provision of technical services. In respect of TCG Lifesciences ("TCG") the Ld. counsel argues that the same included by the TPO in the final set and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is functionally dissimilar and therefore, should be excluded from the comparable set. Reference is made to the Director's report, wherein it can be seen that the company is engaged in the business of contract research operation which is functionally different from the business of the appellant. In the "Notes to Accounts", it is stated that the company has earned its whole operating income fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessee took a plea that this is not a functionally comparable company. When assessee was confronted with the fact that in previous year, it was taken in the TP report by the assessee himself and the activities of the company have not changed, then there is no justification for excluding this company. Further, the Appellant has not submitted any justification on the acceptance of the third company viz. Transgene Biotech Limited as it is beneficial to the interest of the appellant. Since, the appellant in the given case has not given sufficient and appropriate evidence for the rejection of the 3 comparables selected by the TPO, I am in agreement with the contentions of the TPO that Transgene Biotech Limited, Alphageo (India) Ltd. & TCG Lifescience Ltd. are valid comparable which were also selected justified in the TP Order of my predecessor in the case of the appellant itself in AY 2008-09." Thus the Ld. DR explains that the AO has rightly included the comparable companies and correctly made an adjustment of Rs. 40,49,175/- on account of technical services. As regards the back office support services, the Ld. DR supports the order of the CIT(A) referri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting Alphageo as a comparable as it is functionally different from the appellant's business. Next we deal with TCG. An examination of the annual report clearly indicates the TCG is engaged in the business of contract research operation. This is evident from the revenue of Rs. 1,131,931,865/-, it derived from sales (contract research operations). A perusal of the accounts also indicates that TCG has earned its whole operating income from contract research operations. Thus one can safely conclude that the business of the appellant is functionally different from TCG. Therefore, TCG is rejected as a comparable because it is functionally different from the appellant's business. Then we come to Pfizer. An examination of the accounts clearly indicates that Pfizer has prepared and reported financials with November end, whereas the appellant prepares and reports financial data for financial year end i.e. March. In CIT v PTC Software (I)(P) Ltd. (2016) 75 taxmann.com 31 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that "data to be used for the comparability analysis should be of the same financial year in which the international transactions were entered into by the tested party"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant for AY 2007-08 (ITA No. 6708/Mum/2011) and AY 2008-09 (ITA No. 3601/Mum/2014). The Ld. DR relies on the order of the CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that similar disallowance made by the AO, then confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.02.2018 for Ay 2007-08, by observing that : "48. We have heard rival contentions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. It is evident, while disallowing the amount in dispute under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has held that the payment made by the assessee to EMCAP towards Global support services is in the nature of fees for technical service as defined under Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. It is also relevant to note, under Article-12 of India Singapore tax treaty, fees for technical services, though, is taxable in the hands of the recipient in Singapore, however, it can also be taxed in India under certain circumstances. Applying the said provision, it is necessary to determine whether the payment made can at all be termed as fee f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the person acquiring the service to apply the technology therein. A perusal of the agreement between the assessee and EMCAP makes it clear that as per the terms of the agreement EMCAP would provide management consulting, functional advice, administrative, technical, professional and other support services to the assessee either itself or through any affiliate or through third parties. However, there is nothing in the agreement to conclude that in the course of such provision of service, EMCAP has made available any technical knowledge experience, skill, knowhow, or process which enables the assessee to apply the technology contained therein on its own without the aid of EMCAP. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court while explaining the true import of expression "make available" in case of De Beers India Mineral Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has observed as under:- "What is the meaning of "make available". The technical or consultancy service rendered should be of such a nature that it "makes available" to the recipient technical knowledge, know-how and the like. The service should he aimed at and result in transmitting technical knowledge, etc., so that the payer of the service could d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed on record that while rendering the services, EMCAP has made available technical knowledge, knowhow, skill, etc., to the assessee in a manner to enable him to apply them independently or on its own. Therefore, the payment made by the assessee cannot be considered as fees for technical services as defined under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore tax treaty and for this reason also we do not have to examine taxability of the same under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Moreover, it is a fact on record that the payment of global support service fee was made under the agreement which has continued from the year 2003. It is a matter of record that in the preceding assessment years though the assessee has paid global support service fees to EMCAP without deducting tax at source, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was ever made. Therefore, there being no difference in facts in the impugned assessment year, considering that the payment was made under the same contract, even, applying the rule of consistency, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made in the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The....