TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pricing Officer (-the learned TPO") in his order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act and subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Honble DRP"). Each of the ground is referred to separately. which may kindly be considered independent of each other. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING MATTERS 1. The learned AO/TPO/DRP have erred in making an addition of INR 5.30.28.523 to the total income of the appellant in respect of international transaction pertaining to provision of software development services by the appellant to its associated enterprise ('`AE") (hereinafter referred to as -subject transaction'). 2. The learned AO/TPO/DRP have erred in not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the appellant in accordance with provisions of the Act and modifying the economic analysis for determination of arm's length price (-ALP") of the subject transaction to hold that the same is not at arm's length. 3. The learned AO/TPO/DRP have erred by incorrectly using "persistent operating losses' to reject companies reporting loss for any two years out of last ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount for differences in the risk profile of the appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies. 11. The learned AO has erred in levying consequential interest under section 234B of the Act." 2. At the time of hearing, assessee pressed only ground Nos.7.1, 7.2, 8 & 9 and other grounds are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 3. Ground No.7.1: The learned AO/TPO/DRP have erred in excluding certain companies from the final set of comparables viz. Batchmaster Software, DCIS Dot Com Solutions India, Sasken Technologies and Evoke Technologies, even though these companies are comparable to the appellant. 3.1. In this ground assessee pressed only inclusion of following 3 comparables: i. Batchmaster Software ii. DCIS Dot Com Solutions India iii. Evoke Technologies Ltd. 3.2 After haring both the parties, we are of the opinion that these 3 comparables were considered in the case of M/s. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.181/Bang/2022 dated 27.7.2022, wherein it was held as under: "13. In respect of Ground no. 2, assessee is seeking inclusion of only following comparables: a) Batchmaster Software Pvt. Ltd. b) DCIS DOT COM Sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f M/s. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), wherein held as under:- 11. Ground no. 1 - The Ld.AR submitted that following are the turnover of the comparables sought for exclusion in ground no.1. 1. L&T Infotech Ltd. - Rs. 6183 crores 2. Persistent Systems Ltd. - Rs. 1720 crores 3. Tata Elxsi Ltd. - Rs. 1201 crores 4. Infosys Ltd. - Rs. 59,257 crores 5. R Systems Ltd. - Rs. 264 crores 6. Nihilent Technologies Ltd. - Rs. 259 crores 7. Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 759 crores 11.1 He submitted that these comparables are not at all similar even in functions with that of the assessee as they have product segment without segmental details available. It is the submission of the assessee that these comparables are involved in various research and development activities that generate huge intangibles. 11.2 The Ld.AR submitted that in case of the present assessee, the turnover for year under consideration is only 13 crores and it is a captive service provider rendering services only to its AE. The Ld.AR submitted that the business profile of the activities carried out by the assessee is no way a match with the functions performed and services rendered by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore held that a company which is otherwise functionally comparable cannot be excluded only on the basis of high turnover. The Assessee has raised Grd.No.4 before the Tribunal challenging the aforesaid view of the DRP. 12. On the issue of application of turnover filter, we have heard the rival submissions. The parties relied on several decisions rendered on the above issue by the various decisions of the ITAT Bangalore Benches in favour of the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue, respectively. The ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Dell International Services India (P) Ltd. v. Dy CIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 44, took note of the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Sysarris Software (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 243 wherein the Tribunal after noticing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the decision to the contrary in the case of CIT v. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd ., [2016] 69 taxmann.com 180/381 ITR 216 (Bom.) wherein it was held that high turnover is a ground to exclude a company from the list of comparable companies in determining ALP, held that there w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnover of 1.00 to 200.00 crores only should be taken into consideration for the purpose of making TP study." 42. The Assessee's turnover was around Rs. 110 Crores. Therefore the action of the CIT(A) in directing TPO to exclude companies having turnover of more than Rs. 200 crores as not comparable with the Assessee was justified. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Assessee, there are two views expressed by two Hon'ble High Courts of Bombay and Delhi and both are non-jurisdictional High Courts. The view expressed by the Bombay High Court is in favour of the Assessee and therefore following the said view, the action of the CIT(A) excluding companies with turnover of above Rs. 200 crores from the list of comparable companies is held to correct and such action does not call for any interference.' 13. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 263 (Bang-Trib), took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision held as that high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. The following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. The decision was rendered as early as 58-2011. The decisions rendered by the ITAT Mumbai Benches cited by the learned DR before us in the case of Willis Processing Services (supra) and Capegemini India (P.) Ltd. (supra) are to be regarded as per incurium as these decisions ignore a binding coordinate bench decision. In this regard the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the Assessee supports the plea of the learned counsel for the Assessee. The decisions rendered in the case of M/S.NTT Data (supra), Societe Generale Global Solutions (supra) and LSI Technologies (supra) were rendered later in point of time. Those decisions follow the ratio laid down in Willis Processing Services (supra) and have to be regarded as per incurium. These three decisions also place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chriscapital Investment (supra). We have already held that the decision rendered in the case of Chriscapital Investment (supra) is obiter dicta and that the ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pentair (supra) which is favourable to the Assessee has to be followed. Therefore, the decisions cited ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mended rules allow for introduction of a "range concept" for determination of ALP and "use of multiple year data" for undertaking comparability analysis in transfer pricing cases. The use of range concept being a statistical tool enhances the reliability of analysis undertaken for computation of ALP. The range concept will be applicable in certain cases for determining the price and will begin with the 35th percentile and end with the 65th percentile of the comparable prices. Transaction price shown by the taxpayers falling within the range will be accepted and no adjustment will be made. The use of multiple year data allows for yearly variations to be averaged out and would therefore add value to transfer pricing analysis. The Amended Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules') via Notification 83 of 2015 which is the 16th amendment to the originally drafted Indian Tax Rules, 1962, are applicable for transactions undertaken on or after 1 April 2014 (i.e. from FY 2014-15 and onwards). These amended provisions are applicable only when the determination of 'ALP' is done under the MAM being resale price method ('RPM'), cost plus method ('CPM') or transactional net....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has in the financial year immediately preceding the said financial year undertaken the same or similar comparable uncontrolled transaction then,- (i) the price in respect of such uncontrolled transaction shall be determined by applying the most appropriate method in a similar manner as it was applied to determine the price of the comparable uncontrolled transaction undertaken in the financial year immediately preceding the current year; and (ii) the weighted average of the prices, computed in accordance with the manner provided in sub-rule (3), of the comparable uncontrolled transactions undertaken in the aforesaid period of two years shall be included in the dataset instead of the price referred to in sub-rule (1) : Provided also that where the use of data relating to the current year in terms of the proviso to sub-rule (5) of rule 10B establishes that, - (i) The enterprise has not undertaken same or similar uncontrolled transaction during the current year; or (ii) the uncontrolled transaction undertaken by an enterprise in the current year is not a comparable uncontrolled transaction, then, irrespective of the fact that such an enterprise had undertaken comparable unc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 10CA(2), weighted average of the prices of the 3 financial years have to be taken in accordance with Rule 10CA(3) and the weighted average so taken shall be included data set instead of the price arrived at by using current year data alone. In the present case, if one sees the chart of comparables of TPO given in paragraph- 4 of this order, the profit margins of the Company R.S. Software (India) Ltd., for the three financial years were 2013-14 to 2015-16 were 24.14%, 32.75% and - 2.09% respectively and the weighted average margin of 24.83% has been considered by the TPO. 18. The second proviso to section 10CA(2) of the Rules provides for a situation where R.S. Software (India) Ltd., has undertaken comparable uncontrolled transaction only in Financial year 201415 & 2015-16, then the weighted average of the two financial year 2014-15 and 2015-16 has to be computed in the manner laid down in Rule 10CA(3) of the Rules and the margin so arrived at has to be included in the dataset. 19. The third proviso to section 10CA(2) of the rules provides that if in the current year i.e., financial year 2015-16 if R.S. Software (India) Ltd., has not undertaken any uncontrolled comparable tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant 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 then taken into account to arrive at an arm's length price in relation to the international transaction [or the specified domestic transaction]; ** (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the comparability of an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] with an uncontrolled transaction shall b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect the price or cost charged or paid in, or the profit arising from, such transactions in the open market or reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences. A reading of Proviso to Rule 10B(4) would show that use of data relating to a period of two years prior to the current year may also be considered but with a rider that "if such data reveals facts which could have an influence on the determination of transfer prices in relation to the transactions being compared". If by application of any filter an enterprise undertaking uncontrolled transaction similar to an international transaction is regarded as not being comparable in the earlier two years immediately preceding the current year and thereby attracting the provisions of Rule 10B(2) or 10B(3) then the data for those years will not have any influence on the determination of transfer prices in relation to the transactions being compared for the current year and hence have to be ignored. On a harmonious reading of the provisions of Rule 10CA, 10B(3) (4) of the Rules, we agree with the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Assessee. Therefore, if at all R.S.Software Ltd., i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 aforesaid decision, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue of application of turnover filter and his action in excluding companies by following the ratio laid down in the case of Genisys Integrating (supra)." 4.2.1 In view of the judicial pronouncements, cited supra, we direct the AO to exclude Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited, Mindtree Limited, Persistent Systems Limited, Tata Elxsi Limited, Nihilent Limited, Infosys Limited and Cybage Software Private Limited from the list of comparables, since the said companies are having turnover far exceeding Rs.200 crore for the relevant assessment year. It is ordered accordingly. 4.3 In the result, ground 6(iii) is partly allowed." 12.1. Nothing has been placed by the Revenue to deviate from the above view taken by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in Zynga Game Network India (P.) Ltd. (supra). Respectfully following the above, we direct Ld. AO/TPO to exclude Tata Elxi Ltd (Seg.), Mindtree Ltd., Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd., RS Software (India) Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Nihilent Technologies Ltd., Infosys Ltd., Cybage software Pvt.Ltd. for having high turnover as compared to a captive service provider like assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Ld.AO to exclude the above compa....