AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....') craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 11, Bangalore [hereinafter referred to as the 'learned AO'] under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - I, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hon'ble DRP') on the following grounds, each of which are without prejudice to one another. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: Original grounds: A. Grounds of appeal relating to corporate tax matters 1.The learned AO has erred in law and in fact, by not considering the plea of the Appellant that communication expenses (in the nature of internet charges) should not be reduced from export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A and 1OB of the Act, respectively 2.The learned AO has erred in law and in facts by disregarding the methodology adopted by Appellant in allocating the common/ indirect costs among its various business segments; 3.The learned DR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements. 11. The learned TPO / learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting the filter of ratio of research and development expenses to sales less than 3% considered by the Appellant for the purpose of selecting the companies which do not own intangibles and are pure service providers; 12. The learned TPO / learned AO have erred in law and in facts, by rejecting the filter adopted by the Appellant for selecting companies having a ratio of sum of advertising, marketing and distribution expenses to sales less than 3%; Modified grounds: 13. The learned TPO / learned AO have erred in law and in facts, by accepting/rejecting following companies based on unreasonable comparability criteria: 13.1. For software development services segment, Persistent Systems Limited should not be selected as comparable to the Appellant' 13.2. Following companies should be selected as comparable to the Appellant in relation to the software development services segment: (a) Akshay Software Technologies Limited (b) Goldstone Technologies Limited (c) LGS Global....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue was not "any matter arising out of assessment proceedings relating to draft order" and hence the enhancement done by the DRP is beyond its jurisdiction and bad in-law. Additional Grounds filed vide letter dated 18 November 2016: 15E. The Learned TPO/AO have erred wrongly computing the operating margin of Cyber Media Research Limited (IDC Limited) at 19.52% as against 12.88% computed by the Appellant. 15F. The learned TPO/AO have erred in law and in facts, by not making suitable working capital adjustment while computing operating margins for the Appellant vis-a-vis the com parables. Original Grounds: c. Grounds of appeal relating to other matters 16.The learned AO has erred in law and in facts by providing credit to the taxes deducted at source only to the extent of INR 8,01,53,278 as against INR 8,35,65,585 claimed by the Appellant in its return of income and as allowed by the learned AO while passing the draft assessment order. 17.The learned AO has erred, in law and in facts, by considering an amount of INR 34,36,61,090 as refund issued under section 143(1) of the Act in computing the demand coupled with erroneous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel is correct in directing to include forex gain / loss as operating in nature without ascertaining the nexus with the business activity of the taxpayer. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel is correct in excluding ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd, M/s Persistent Systems & Solution Ltd and KALS information systems Ltd, while the comparable is qualifying all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel is correct in excluding INFOSYS BPO Ltd on the basis of decision in a different case for a different FY while the comparable is qualifying all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel is correct in holding that Eclerx Services Ltd cannot be taken as comparable, being functionally different when it satisfies all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the PO. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and quantitative filters applied by the TPO. 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel is correct in excluding M/s Apitco Ltd, ICRA Online Ltd and M/s Kshitij Investment Advirosy Co Ltd in Administration and other support services and Management services segment, while the comparables is qualifying all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO. 20. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed. 21. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and / or delete any of the grounds mentioned above. CORPORATE TAX MATTERS 4. The first ground in assessee's appeal is with regard to not considering the plea of the assessee that communication expenses should not be excluded from the export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act. 4.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so been consistently adopted by Cisco India on a year on year basis. It was further submitted that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09 in IT(TP)A No.1510/ Bang/2012, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. EHPT India (P) Ltd. 350 ITR 41 and for A.Y. 2009-2010 in IT(TP)A No.271/Bang/2014 has upheld the method of allocation of the common expenses adopted by the assessee and held that where two basis of apportionment of common costs are available, any one of the basis should be consistently followed. Thus, since Cisco India has been following headcount basis for allocation from past 8 years the same basis should be followed for A.Y. 2008-2009 as well. Further, it was also submitted that the headcount basis of allocation of common expenses should be followed for A.Y. 2010-2011 as well. 5.2 After having heard the objections of the assessee, the DRP noticed that the allocation made by the assessee to the various segments is not correct which is evident from the information given in the table below :- Segment Profit % on cost of reimbursed as per the agreement with the AE Profit % as per the segmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the rival contentions and also the material on record, we find that the dispute revolves around the allocation of indirect and common expenses relating to various units and the expenditure allocated to STPI unit, income from which is eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The assessee is stated to be following head-count of personnel as the basis for allocation of the common and indirect expenses while the AO seeks to allocate the common expenses on the basis of the turnover of each segment. As narrated in the above paragraphs, the assessee is into various activities and the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act only with regard to software development activity which is set up in STPI. The assessee had explained in detail before the AO the methodology and as to how the total expenditure of Rs. 207 crores has been bifurcated into Rs. 120 crores which is towards the common cost excluding IT and ommunication support cost and Rs. 87 crores which is common costs only in relation to IT and communication cost. The software development would fall within the second category i.e. IT and communication cost and its employees who are involved in such IT and communication a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly Rs. 27 crores was allocated towards such unit, whereas there were less employees in SEZ unit but more than Rs. 53 crores was allocated to such division, we are of the opinion that this needs verification by the AO. The assessee has given detailed explanation as to how it is allocating the expenditure between various units on the basis of headcount but both the AO as well as the DRP have failed to consider the factual aspects of the said submission. In view of the same, while upholding the method adopted by the assessee for allocation of common expenses, we remand the issue to the file of the AO only for verification of the number of employees and the expenditure allocated to such employees. Ground No.3 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes." 5.7 We also find that the Department has challenged the above order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble High Court in ITA No.140/2014, vide judgment dated 12th July, 2018, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Being so, taking the consistent view, we allow this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee, and uphold the view taken by the Tribunal in the first round of appeal (in ITA No.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d above". 6.2 The assessee company in response to the above notice filed letter dated 19-12-2014 in which it is submitted that the company is in process of collating the required information / details and would require additional time to file the submissions. It is in the knowledge of the assessee that the directions uls 144C cannot be issued in this case after 31-12- 2014, and in such circumstances, the time cannot be allowed beyond 30-12-2014. However, the assessee failed to furnish the information till the date of issue of the directions by this order. In such circumstances, the DRP issued following directions to the Assessing Officer:- (i) direct the Assessing Officer to allocate the net foreign exchange loss of Rs. 3,68,11,310/- to the 5 segments mentioned in Paragraph 25 of the order of TPO based on the % of operating revenue of the relevant segment to the total revenue and then the operating cost to be increased by adding the proportionate foreign exchange loss to the cost of relevant segment for making the adjustment uls 92CA of the Income-tax Act as it is evident from the Appendix - B to the TP documentation that exchange loss was Rs. 54,13,17,857/- was netted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ays of receipt of this order, we direct the Assessing Officer to modify the directions given in (i) & (ii) above according to the following:- (a) if it is claimed that the foreign exchange gain of Rs. 20,45,06,547/- is on capital account, then the allocation of gross foreign exchange loss of Rs. 54,13,17,857/-(instead of net foreign exchange loss of Rs. 33,68,11,310/-) is required to be made to the operating cost of 5 segments in accordance with the directions in (i) above for making adjustment u/s 92CA and the deduction of Rs. 20,45,06,547/- will be allowed instead of Rs. 40,23,03,313/- (Rs. 25,26,39,693 + Rs. 14,40,19,285/- Rs. 56,44,335/-) in computing the total income unless it is established that the corresponding amount of Rs. 40,23,03,313/- has been credited to the profit and loss account. (b) The Assessing Officer is also directed to consider the foreign exchange fluctuation (loss or gain) as operating In nature while computing the margins in respect of comparables retained by this order to determine the mean margin of the comparables for the relevant segments for the purpose of adjustment u/s 92CA of the Income-tax Act. 6.3 The contention of the AR is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee, in line with the provisions of the Act, has reduced the gains amounting to INR 40,23,17,330 for being capital in nature. Our contention for considering such expenses as capital has been provided in below. It is to be noted that of the Exchange gain of Rs. 14,40,32,302 on restatement of creditors for fixed assets are not taxable in view of the decisions of Supreme Court decision in case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (116 ITR 1) and Bombay HC decision in case of V.S. Dempo & Co Pvt. Ltd (206 ITR 291), which has specifically held that gain/ loss on arising on fixed capital on account of alteration in exchange rate is capital in nature. Further, in connection with foreign exchange gain of Rs. 25,26,39,693 incurred on share application money, it is submitted that same is capital in nature, in view of Delhi HC decision in case of Jagatjit Industries Ltd (337 1TR 21), which has held that since amount raised through issue of equity shares is to be treated as capital receipt irrespective of the end use of the share capital and, therefore, the gains on account of foreign exchange fluctuations in respect of share capital collected in foreign exchange is capital receipt. Given the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities the assessee failed to furnish the details with regard to the foreign exchange gain / or loss along with evidences to support the same. We also find that identical issue came up before the Tribunal in assessee's own case in IT(TP)A 271/Bang/2014 (order dated 14.08.2014), wherein the Tribunal held as under:- "23. We have considered the rival submissions. In the course of hearing before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee also filed a segment wise break up of foreign exchange fluctuation gain, the same is given as Annexure-I to this order. It can be seen from the aforesaid chart given by the assessee that the total foreign exchange gain on account of realization of proceeds from debtors, taken to creditors, inter-company statements etc. was a sum of Rs. 179,01,08,756. Out of the above, the assessee on his own has excluded foreign exchange fluctuation on account of advances towards share capital charged to P&L account and foreign exchange fluctuation in the matter of purchase of fixed assets charged to P&L account. It is thus clear from the chart that a sum of Rs. 37,89,23,185 which was sought to be added as part of the operating income on rendering software deve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee is found acceptable. Accordingly, the DRP directed the AO to exclude the above company from the comparables. 7.1.1 We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that this issue was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. M/s.Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd. In IT(TP)A No.212/ Bang/ 2015 for assessment year 2010-2011, vide order dated 24.02.2016, wherein the Tribunal held as under:- "14. At the outset, we note that apart from having the related party revenue at 20.94% of the total revenue, this company was also found to be functionally not comparable with software development services segment of the assessee. The DRP has given its finding at pages 13 to 14 as under:- "Having heard the contentions, on perusal of the annual report, it is noticed by us that the segmental information is available for two segments i.e., services and sales. However, it is evident from the annual report that the service segment comprises of software development, software development, software consultancy, engineering services, web development, web hosting, etc. for which no segmental information....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year remains the same. Therefore, the DRP directed the A.O. to exclude the Infosys Limited from comparables. 7.2.2 After hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that this issue also considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of DCIT v. M/s.Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.212/Bang/2015 (supra), wherein the Tribunal held as under:- "19. We have heard the ld.DR as well as ld.AR and considered the relevant material on record. We note that in the case of Agnity India Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 58 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib.), the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has considered the comparability of this company and the findings of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that this company having brand value as well as intangible assets cannot be compared with an ordinary entity provide captive service. We further note that this company provides end to end business solutions that leverage cutting edge technology thereby enabling clients to enhance business performance. This company also provides solutions that span ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons including in the case of Trilogy e-business Software India Ltd. ITA No.1054/Bang/2011 dated 23.11.2012. We further note that in the balance sheet of this company as on 31.3.2010, there are inventories of Rs. 60,47,977. Therefore, when this company is in the business of software products, the same cannot be compared with a pure software development services provider. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned findings of the DRP." Persistent Systems Limited 7.4 The ld.DRP observed that the receipt of Rs. 6.67 crore has been shown from sale of software services and products. However, no segmental information is available in regard to software services and products separately. Therefore, the DRP was of the view that in absence of segmental information, Persistent Systems Limited cannot be retained as comparable, and accordingly, they directed the AO to exclude the said company from the list of comparables. 7.4.1 After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that Persistent Systems Limited has been excluded from the list of comparables by the Tribunal in the case of CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the exclusion of following comparables in Technical Support Service Segments. Acropetal Technologies Limited 8.1 The ld.DRP after examining the Annual Report of this company observed from the profit and loss account that out of the total expenses of Rs. 87.26 crore, the expenses of Rs. 55.85 crore incurred on Onsite development of software which works out to 64% of the total expenses which makes it clear that the company is predominantly engaged in providing services Onsite and therefore, not comparable with the assessee. The DRP also held that the employees cost filter need to be applied in ITS segment also, on that account also as the employees cost is less than 25%. Accordingly, the DRP directed the AO to exclude Acropetal Technologies Limited from the list of comparables. 8.1.1 After hearing both sides, we find that this issue came for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.191/Bang/2015. The Tribunal vide order dated 25th January, 2017 for assessment year 2010-2011 held as under:- "13. As regards Accentia Technologies Ltd. and ICRA Online Ltd. this Tribunal in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnised as experts in chosen markets-financial services and retail and manufacturing. These software automation tools increase productivity, allowing customers to benefit from further cost saving and output gains with better control over quality. Keeping in view the nature of services rendered by this company and its functional profile, the company is also mainly engaged in providing highend services involving specialized knowledge and domain expertise in the field and the same cannot be compared with the assessee company which is mainly engaged in providing low-end services to the group concerns. The ld.DRP also followed the orders of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [ITA No.1086/Bang/2011] and Symphony Marketing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO [ITA No.1316/Bang/2012], wherein also the Tribunal directed the AO to exclude Eclerx Services Limited from the list of comparables. 8.2.1 After hearing both sides, we find that similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein the held as under:- "14.1 We have considered the rival submissions and relevant reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 83. For the reasons given above, we are of the view that if the functions actually performed by the assessee company for its AEs are compared with the functional profile of M/s eClerx Services Pvt.Ltd. and Mold-Tec Technologies Ltd., it is difficult to find out any relatively equal degree of comparability and the said entities cannot be taken as comparables for the purpose of determining ALP of the transactions of the assessee company with its AEs. We, therefore, direct that these two entities be excluded from the list of 10 comparables finally taken by the AO/TPO as per the direction of the DRP." 14.2 As discussed by the Special Bench in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India ) (P) Ltd (supra), this company provides data analysis, operating management, audits, reconciliation, metrics management and operating services. It has two business verticals - financial services, retail and manufacturing. It was found to have being providing complete business solutions in the nature of high end services. The nature and different field of services provided by this company clearly show that it is not functionally comparable with the ITES. Accordingly, we direct the TPO/AO to ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Seg.) b) Acropetal Tech. Ltd. (Seg.) c) Coral Hubs Ltd. Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. d) Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. e) Eclerx Services Ltd. f) Genesys International Corpn. Ltd. g) Mold Tek Technologies Ltd." We further note that the functional comparability has been examined in detailed by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Equant Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in IT(TP)A No.1202/Del/2015 as well as in the case of ITO Vs. Interwoven Software Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.461/Bang/2015. Further in the case of Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg.), the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kodiak Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in IT(TP)A No.1540/Bang/2012 has considered the functional comparability and found that this company is not comparable with a captive service provider. Accordingly we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude these companies from set of comparables." 8.3.1 In view of the above order of the Tribunal (supra), we confirm the exclusion of ICRA Online Limited from the list of comparables. Infosys BPO Limited 8.4 The ld.DRP observed that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.3856 (Del)/2010 at para 5.2 thereof, that Infosys Technologies Ltd. being a giant company and market leader assuming all risks leading to higher profits cannot be considered as comparable to captive service providers assuming limited risk ; (iii) the company has generated several inventions and filed for many patents in India and USA ; (iv) the company has substantial revenues from software products and the break up of such revenues is not available ; (v) the company has incurred huge expenditure for research and development; (vi) the company has made arrangements towards acquisition of IPRs in 'AUTOLAY', a commercial application product used in designing high performance structural systems. In view of the above reasons, the learned Authorised Representative pleaded that, this company i.e. Infosys Technologies Ltd., be excluded form the list of comparable companies. 15.3 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 operation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss Services Limited 10.2 The ld.DRP excluded this company from the list of comparables, however, the learned Departmental Representative sought for inclusion of the same. At the time of hearing before us, the learned AR did not raise any objection for inclusion of this comparable in the list of comparables. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to include Sundaram Business Services Limited as a comparable. MARKETING SALES AND SUPPORTING SERVICES 11. The learned Departmental Representative urged for inclusion of the following comparables:- (i) HCCA Business Services Private Limited (ii) Killick Agencies & Marketing Limited HCCA Business Services Private Limited 11.1 The learned AR submitted that this company is engaged in HR consultancy services like payroll processing and compensation structuring, HR operations and administration, management of labour and legal compliances, reimbursement processing, accounting services. The ld.DRP noticed that except Note 2.14 in the Annual Report there is no other observation, from which it can be established that the company is engaged in marketing and sale services, comparable to the assessee. Thus, directed the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd directed the AO to exclude this comparable from the list of comparables. 11.2.1 After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that this issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held as under:- "44. The assessee objected against this company on the ground that commission/service charges income of this company is Rs. 2,19,00,000 out of the operating revenue of Rs. 3,39,00,000. Therefore, the commission/ service charges income constitute about 65% of the operating revenue which is less than 75% of the operating revenue filter applied by the TPO. In the absence of segmental results, this company was sought to be excluded from the set of comparables. 45. The DRP found that this company conducts business as an agent of the foreign principal and deal in maritime equipments. Further, the receipts are mainly in the nature of commission income and service charges. Therefore, this company was functionally dissimilar to that of assessee. 46. We have heard the ld. DR as well as ld. AR and considered the relevant material on record. 47. The ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12.1 We find that this issue is considered and decided by the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held as under:- "50. The assessee has raised various objections in the CO. However, we find that the only effective ground raised by the assessee in the marketing support segment is regarding Asian Business Exhibition & IT(TP)A No.212/Bang/2015 & CO No.94/Bang/2015 Page 25 of 33 Conference Ltd., a comparable selected by the TPO and retained by the DRP. 51. The assessee objected against this company on the ground that this company is functionally different as it is engaged in organizing exhibitions and conferences. The DRP did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that this company received income in the nature of consultancy for organizing exhibitions and events. Therefore this company is functionally similar to the functions carried out by the assessee. 52. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that functional comparability of this company has been examined by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of RGA Services India Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 12. Thus, on overall analysis of facts and materials placed on record it is very much clear that the business model of the assessee and Asian Business Exhibition and Conferences Limited are totally different. While assessee undoubtedly is providing support services to its overseas AE's, Asian Business Exhibition and Conferences Limited is primarily and fundamentally engaged in event management. Thus, under no circumstances it can be considered as a comparable to the assessee. Therefore, for the aforestated reasons the DRP, in our view, was justified in excluding this company as a comparable. As far as the contention of learned DR that reasons on which this company was excluded equally applies to other comparables retained by the DRP, we may observe, such argument of learned DR is not at all relevant as the issue raised by the department in the present appeal is confined to exclusion of Asian Business Exhibition and Conferences Limited as a comparable. As far as objection of learned departmental representative that assessee itself has selected this company as a comparable, we may observe, that cannot be the sole criteria to reject assessee's objection with regard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s appeal is for not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the risk profile of the assessee visà- vis the comparables. 14.1 After hearing both the parties, we find that this issue was considered in assessee's own case for assessment year 2009-2010 in IT(TP)A No.271/Bang/ 2014. The Tribunal vide its order dated 14th August, 2014 held as under:- "28. The ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted before us that the assessee had sought for risk adjustments, but the same has not been considered by the TPO. In this regard, our attention was drawn to the following submissions made before the revenue authorities:- "17.1 The Appellant functions under a limited risk environment with most of the risk being assumed by its AE. The Appellant bears lesser limited business risks than independent comparable companies due to the nature of its revenue model as it is guaranteed profits by way of a mark-up on costs incurred, in provision of the software development services. However, the independent companies have to bear the vagaries of the economic and business factors that are prevailing in the industry and thus could either incur losses or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of differences in risk so that adjustment can be made. But in case of the taxpayer, both the prerequisites are missing. Neither the difference in risk level of the tested parts and uncontrolled comparables has been established nor is it possible to convert the difference in risk level, if there is any, into numbers. If there is any difference, for amount academically speaking, it rests in the realm of quality and not quantity. There is no reliable method to convert the qualitative difference into quantitative difference and to make adjustment on account of risk level. As per the provisions of Rule 10B(3), if any adjustment should be made, it should be reasonably accurate to eliminate the material effects of such differences. But in case of risk adjustment, neither reasonably accurate adjustment can be made for want of method to do so nor has it been established that there is a material effect that is affecting the comparisons due to risk level. If the taxpayer is suggesting that there exists a difference in the risk level assumed by the tested party and uncontrolled comparables, it is academic in nature and not based on any study whose results has been validated. It is not....