TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to any one or more of such enterprises. In terms of Sec.92(1) of the Act, the Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm's length price. In this appeal by the assessee, the dispute is with regard to determination of Arms' Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transaction of rendering EDS to the AE. 3. As far as the provision of EDS are concerned, the assessee filed a Transfer Pricing Study (TP Study) to justify the price paid in the international Transaction as at ALP by adopting the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) of determining ALP. The assessee selected Operating Profit/Opera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 18.93 65th Percentile 19.85 The TPO computed the Addition to total income on account of adjustment to ALP as follows: EDS Segment Particulars Formula Amount (in INR) Taxpayers Operating Revenue OR 30,56,64,071 Taxpayers Operating Cost 00 27,30,05,947 Taxpayers Operating Profit OP 3,26,58,124 Taxpayers PLI PLI=OP/OC 11.96% 35th Percentile Margin of comparable set 17.92% Adjustment Required (if PLI< 35th Percentile) Yes Median Margin of comparable set M 18.93% Arm's Length Price ALP=(1+M)*OC 32,46,85,973 Price Received OR 30,56,64.071 Shortfall being adjustment ALP-OR 1,90,21,902 Summary of adjustments S. No Description Adjustment u/s 92CA (In Rs.) 1 EDS Segment Rs. 1,90,21,902/- Total adjustment u/s 92CA Rs. 1,90,21,902/- Thus a sum of Rs.1,90,21,902/- was added to the total income of the assessee on account of determina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] entered into with an associated enterprise is computed in relation to costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed or to be employed by the enterprise or having regard to any other relevant base; (ii) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise or by an unrelated enterprise from a comparable uncontrolled transaction or a number of such transactions is computed having regard to the same base; (iii) the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause (ii) arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions is adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction [or the specified domestic transaction] and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market; (iv) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise and referred to in sub-clause (i) is established to be the same as the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause (iii); (v) the net profit margin thus established is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Guidance on comparability adjustments is found in paragraphs 3.47- 3.54 and in the Annexure to Chapter III of the TPG. A revised version of this guidance was approved by the Council of the OECD on 22 July 2010. In paragraph 2 of these guidelines, it has been explained as to what is comparability adjustment. The guideline explains that when applying the arm's length principle, the conditions of a controlled transaction (i.e., a transaction between a taxpayer and an associated enterprise) are generally compared to the conditions of comparable uncontrolled transactions. In this context, to be comparable means that: None of the differences (if any) between the situations being compared could materially affect the condition being examined in the methodology (e.g. price or margin), or Reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the effect of any such differences. These are called "comparability adjustments. 10. The assessee's turnover is only Rs. 40,39,51,067/-. The TPO excluded from the list of comparable companies chosen by the assessee in its TP study companies whose turnover was less than Rs.1 Crore. The contention of the assessee before the DRP was that while the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional (supra): "41. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Genesis Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010, relying on Dun and Bradstreet's analysis, held grouping of companies having turnover of Rs. 1 crore to Rs.200 crores as comparable with each other was held to be proper. The following relevant observations were brought to our notice:- "9. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions and also the judicial precedents on the issue, we find that the TPO himself has rejected the companies which .ire (sic) making losses as comparables. This shows that there is a limit for the lower end for identifying the comparables. In such a situation, we are unable to understand as to why there should not be an upper limit also. What should be upper limit is another factor to be considered. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the size matters in business. A big company would be in a position to bargain the price and also attract more customers. It would also have a broad base of skilled employees who are able to give better outpu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ether comparable can be rejected on the ground that they have exceptionally high profit margins or fluctuation profit margins, as compared to the Assessee in transfer pricing analysis. Therefore as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Assessee the observations of the Hon'ble High Court, in so far as it refers to turnover, were in the nature of obiter dictum. Judicial discipline requires that the Tribunal should follow the decision of a non-jurisdiction High Court, even though the said decision is of a non-jurisdictional High Court. We however find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pentair Water India Pvt.Ltd. Tax Appeal No.18 of 2015 judgment dated 16.9.2015 has taken the view that turnover is a relevant criterion for choosing companies as comparable companies in determination of ALP in transfer pricing cases. There is no decision of the jurisdictional High Court on this issue. In the circumstances, following the principle that where two views are available on an issue, the view favourable to the Assessee has to be adopted, we respectfully follow the view of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the issue. Respectfully following the afores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the issue of application of turnover filter and his action in excluding companies by following the ratio laid down in the case of Genisys Integrating (supra). 13. In view of the aforesaid decision, we hold that the following 3 companies viz., Exiliant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., and Mindtree Ltd., whose turnover in the current year is more than Rs.200 Crores should be excluded from the list of comparable companies. 14. Another ground raised by the learned Counsel for the assessee in the form of an additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal is with regard to the action of the TPO in not giving effect to the directions of the DRP directing Devita Engineering (India) Ltd., as a comparable company. It is undisputed that the DRP in its directions directed Devita Engineering (India) Ltd., to be included as a comparable company (vide Paragraph 2.3.20.1 of the DRP's direction). The TPO, while giving effect to the order of the DRP, failed to give effect to this direction. We are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to direct the TPO/AO to include this company also as a comparable company in the list of comparable companies. We hold and direct accordingly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses and Tax Administrations (hereafter the "TPG") contain extensive guidance on comparability analyses for transfer pricing purposes. Guidance on comparability adjustments is found in paragraphs 3.47-3.54 and in the Annexure to Chapter III of the TPG. A revised version of this guidance was approved by the Council of the OECD on 22 July 2010. The Tribunal referred to Paragraphs 13 to 16 of the aforesaid OECD guidelines, wherein the need for working capital adjustment has been explained as follows: "13. In a competitive environment, money has a time value. If a company provided, say, 60 days trade terms for payment of accounts, the price of the goods should equate to the price for immediate payment plus 60 days of interest on the immediate payment price. By carrying high accounts receivable a company is allowing its customers a relatively long period to pay their accounts. It would need to borrow money to fund the credit terms and/or suffer a reduction in the amount of cash surplus which it would otherwise have available to invest. In a competitive environment, the price should therefore include an element to reflect these payment terms and compensate for the timing effect. 14. ....