TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of providing SWD Services was an "international transaction" i.e., a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of 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. The Finance Act. 2001 had introduced a legislation with respect to transfer pricing by substituting the erstwhile section 92 of the Act with a new and separate code or sections, namely sections 92 to 92F, with effect from 1st April. 2002. i.e. the assessment year 2002- 2003. The salient features of the legislation with respect to transfer pricing, to the extent material for the purpose of deciding the question referred to the special bench, are as follows: - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ALP. The AO passes a draft order of assessment against which, the Assessee has a right to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s.144C of the Act. Under section 144C(5), the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) shall issue the directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the AO to enable him to complete the assessment after considering report of TPO. The AO passes a final assessment order on the basis of directions of the DRP. 3. The legislative intent in introducing the new transfer pricing legislation, as available in the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 2001, which later on was enacted as the Finance Act, 2001, was as follows. "The increasing participation of multinational groups in economic activities in the country has given rise to new and complex issues emerging from transactions entered into between two or more enterprises belonging to the same multinational group. The profits derived by such enterprises carrying on business in India can be controlled by the multinational group by manipulating the prices charged and paid in such intra-group transactions, thereby, leading to erosion of tax revenues. With a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 4 Harbinger Systems Pvt Ltd 12.28 12.69 17.18 14.1 5 C G-V A K Software & Exports Ltd. 11.65 16.95 17.3 15.09 6 Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. 20.78 19.21 23.98 21.14 7 Great Software Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. 27.18 20.24 10.67 21.24 8 Mindtree Ltd. 20.12 26.11 27.51 24.17 9 R Systems International Ltd. 16.74 31.05 26.44 24.40 10 Persistent Systems Ltd. 25.05 23.95 30.39 26.17 11 Tata Elxsi Ltd. 24.90 29.13 24.45 26.19 12 Infobeans Technologies Ltd. 23.89 34.98 20.46 26.44 13 Aptus Software Labs Pvt. Ltd. 24.83 27.67 26.72 26.46 14 Nihilent Ltd. 34.26 24.46 30.80 29.82 15 OFS Technolog....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s added to the total income of the Assessee by the AO. The DRP gave certain directions. The AO passed final order of assessment against which the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Based on the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final order of assessment. To the extent the Assessee did not get relief from the DRP/CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)/DRP whereby plea of the Assessee was accepted. 8. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that if 7 companies chosen by the TPO are excluded from the list of comparable companies based on ground No.5 raised by the Assessee in the grounds of appeal, then he does not wish to press for adjudication any other ground of appeal. We shall first take up for consideration Grds.5, raised by the Assessee with regard to the choice of comparable companies. Ground of Appeal No 5: The learned AO/ DRP/ TPO have erred in law and in facts, by applying only the lower turnover filter of less than INR 1 crore as a comparability criterion under SWD segment and not applying a higher threshold limit of INR 200 crores for turnover filt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) the net profit margin referred to in subclause (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 then taken into account to arrive at an arm's length price in relation to the international transaction [or the specified domestic transaction]; (f)...... (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the comparability of an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] with an uncontrolled transaction shall be judged with reference to the following, namely:- (a) the specific characteristics of the property transferred or services provided in either transaction; (b) the functions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 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. 12. As far as comparability of companies listed as (a) to (i) of ground No.10, which the Assessee seeks exclusion is concerned, the admitted factual position is that the turnover of these companies is more than Rs.200 Crores and the Assessee's turnover is only Rs.23,64,84,177/-. 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 TPO excluded companies with low turnover, he failed to apply the same yardstick to exclude companies with high turnover compared to the Assessee. The reason for excluding companies with low turnover was that such companies do not ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 output. A small company may not have these benefits and therefore, the turnover also would come down reducing profit margin. Thus, as held by the various benches of the Tribunal, whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sfer 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 aforesaid decision, we uphold the order of the DRP excluding 5 companies from the list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO on the basis that the 5 companies turno....