TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 1394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - III, Bangalore erred in not appreciating the contentions of the assessee that the price charged by it to its associated enterprises satisfied the arms length test envisaged in Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) and that no additions were required. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - III, Bangalore erred in not appreciating the contentions of the assessee that it is a captive software development unit of its parent company and that there were differences in functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed as compared to independent software services companies and adjustments were required to take into account such differences. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - III, Bangalore erred in not appreciating the contentions of the assessee that the rates of depreciation on fixed assts adopted by it were higher than those followed by comparable companies and that adjustments were required to the cost base adopted while determining the arms le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that when this issue of turnover filter of 10 times of the assessee's turnover was not raised before the authorities below then this cannot be raised at this stage. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and relevant material on record. It is pertinent to note that the TPO has applied turnover slab of Rs.1 crore to Rs.200 crores for excluding some of the companies, whereas there is an inherent difficulty in applying such a turnover slab of Rs.1 crore to Rs.200 crores because the said classification on the basis of slab of the turnover gives unrealistic results, as an entity having Rs.1 crore turnover can be compared with any entity having Rs.200 crores turnover, but at the same time an entity having Rs.200 crores turnover cannot be compared with an entity having Rs.201 crores turnover. Thus, as it is clear from the above illustration that it gives ambiguous result as two entities having difference of Rs.1 crore cannot be considered as comparable, whereas on the other hand difference of Rs.199 crores can be considered as comparable company. Therefore, such classification of comparables on the basis of Rs.1 Crore to Rs.200 Crores of turnover is not appropriate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia) Private Limited, in IT(TP)A No. 1302/Bang/2011 dt. 11-06-2015 (supra) as well as DCIT Vs. Toshiba embedded Software (I) Pvt. Ltd., in IT(TP)A No. 1/Bang/2012 dt. 10-05-2013, Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., was accepted as a comparable. However, in the case of Cordys Software India P. Ltd., in ITA No. 1451/Hyd/2010 dt. 13-06-2014 (Where one of us, AM is the author) has considered in detail and excluded the same for the following reasons: "1. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. The learned counsel submitted that this company should be rejected under the following TPO's filters: * Related party transactions filter: As per schedule 4 of the balance sheet, the company has investments in Perigon, LIC, USA and as per the response u/s 133(6); the company has export sales to Perigon LIC, USA of Rs. 133.90 lakhs, being 34.68% of the total turnover. * Functionally different filter: The company in its response to notice u/s 133(6) has stated that it provides e-paper solutions, data cleansing software, website development and other customized software and also state that the e-paper solutions and data cleansing services would come under the category of IT enabled services". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Management System) - IRMAQTM : This is an integrated resource planning, management tracking system exclusively developed for Airline operations. It is an end-to-end solution for all Flight Operations. - Sakai CLE : This is a widely used and popular open source LMS used in many leading educational institutions and corporate. The relevant extract from the Annual report substantiating that the company also engages in different activities is reproduced below: "2. Activities The company as engaged in the business of development of Software Products & Services and training. The production of software is not capable of being expressed in any generic unit and hence 11 is riot possible to give the information as required by certain clauses of paragraphs 3.4C and 4 D of Part II of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956." The Delhi Tribunal in ITO v. Colt Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd. (judgment dated 23.10.2012 in ITA No. 609/Del/2011 for the assessment year 2005-06) has held that the said company is not a comparable to the Assessee therein which was also in the business of software development. IT(TP)A Nos. 04/Bang/2012 & 1388/Bang/2011 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... comparables by applying the filter of more than 70% of its revenue being from software development services. The learned Counsel submitted that the functions of these companies are different from the Assessee who was into sole activity of software development for its associated enterprise. He submitted that the TPO has allocated the expenditure in the proportion of the revenue of these IT(TP)A Nos. 04/Bang/2012 & 1388/Bang/2011 companies from software services and software products and has adopted the figure as segmental margin of the company and has taken these companies as comparables. He submitted that by taking the proportionate expenditure, the correct financial results would not emerge. He submitted that nothing prevented the Assessing Officer/TPO from obtaining the segmental details from the respective comparable companies before adopting them as comparable companies and before taking the operating margin for arriving at the arms length price. He submitted that wherever the segmental details are not available, then the said companies should not be taken as comparables. For this purpose, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of First Adva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the TPO has also observed that the said company has incurred expenditure for selling of products and has incurred R & D expenditure for development of the products. The above facts clearly demonstrate that there is functional dissimilarity between the Assessee and these companies and without making adjustment for the dissimilarities brought out by the TPO himself, these companies cannot be taken as comparable companies. The method adopted by the TPO to allocate expenditure proportionately to the software development services and software product activity cannot be said to be correct and reasonable. Wherever, the Assessing Officer/TPO cannot make suitable adjustment to the financial results of the comparable companies with the Assessee company to bring them on par with the Assessee, these companies are to be excluded from the list of comparables. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude these three companies from the list of comparables. 27. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted before us that TATA Elxsi Ltd., a comparable company out of the 10 excluded by the CIT(A) by applying RPT filter and which gets included in the comparable companies bec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it is not fair to use its financial numbers to compare it with any other company. The communication dated 25th August, 2009 to the TPO is placed before us. As this communication was not before the TPO at the time of transfer pricing adjustment we deem it fit and proper to remand this issue also to the file of the TPO to reconsider adopting this company as the comparable in the light of observations of this company to the TPO in the case of another Assessee. In the result, the Assessing Officer/TPO is directed to reconsider the issue in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee." Keeping the Assessee's objections and the decisions of the Coordinate Bench, prima facie, we are of the view that TATA Elxsi Limited is functionally different and has incomparable size to that of the Assessee. Further, we are unable to verify whether the segmental profits adopted by the TPO pertain to entire software development services or pertain to limited service akin to Assessee services. Since, these aspects are not clear from the data furnished before us, we direct the TPO to examine and in case, the segmental profits of a particular ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctionality was already analysed, respectfully following the Co-ordinate Benches also, the same was to be excluded. i. Intoto Software India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1196/Hyd/2010; ii. Cordys Software India P. Ltd., ITA No. 1451/Hyd/2010 IT(TP)A Nos. 04/Bang/2012 & 1388/Bang/2011 Geometric Software Solutions Company Ltd.,: 10.8. Even though this company was accepted as comparable in ITO Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited, in IT(TP)A No. 1302/Bang/2011 dt. 11-06-2015 (supra) and Cordys Software India P. Ltd., in ITA No. 1451/Hyd/2010 dt. 13-06-2014 (supra) and was not objected to, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench at Banalore in the case of DCIT Vs. Toshiba embedded Software (I) Pvt. Ltd., in IT(TP)A No. 1/Bang/2012 dt. 10-05-2013 has considered that this is in product development. We have perused the TPO's order. In page 85 and 86 of the order, this comparable was analysed. TPO records that there are product sales to the extent of 18%. Segmental profits are not available. On assumptions, this company was retained. We are of the opinion that being a product based company, the same is not strictly comparable to a service company like Assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the order of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the A.O./TPO to exclude these five companies namely (i) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., (ii) Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., (iii) Sankhya Infotech Ltd., (iv) Four Soft Ltd. and (v) Thirdware Solutions Ltd. After exclusion of 10 companies on the ground of having turnover more than 10 times than the assessee and 5 companies as functionally not comparable only two companies are left which are as under : i) Lanco Global Systems Ltd. ii) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. (Seg.) Accordingly, the TPO/A.O. is directed to recomputed the ALP by considering the benefit as per the proviso to section 92C. 10. The revenue in the cross appeal has raised only the issue regarding exclusion of expenses from the export turnover as well as total turnover while computing the deduction under Section 10A of the Act. 10.1. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Others 349 ITR 98 (Kar) had held that while computing the exemption u/s 10A, if the export turnover in the numerator is to be ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....domestic turnover. To the extent of export turnover, there would be a commonality between the numerator and the denominator of the formula. If the export turnover in the numerator is to be arrived at after excluding certain expenses, the same should also be excluded in computing the export turnover as a component of total turnover in the denominator. The reason being the total turnover includes export turnover. The components of the export turnover in the numerator and the denominator cannot be different. Therefore, though there is no definition of the term 'total turnover' in section 10A, there is nothing in the said section to mandate that, what is excluded from the numerator that is export turnover would nevertheless form part of the denominator. When the statute prescribed a formula and in the said formula, 'export turnover' is defined, and when the 'total turnover' includes export turnover, the very same meaning given to the export turnover by the legislature is to be adopted while understanding the meaning of the total turnover, when the total turnover includes export turnover. If what is excluded in computing the export turnover is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22.17% 23 SIP Technologies & Exports Ltd 3.80 13.90% 24 Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg) 262.58 26.51% 25 Thirdware Solutions Ltd 36.08 25.12% 26 Wipro Ltd (seg) 9616.09 33.65% 14. At the time of hearing the ld. AR has pointed out that out of the 26 comparable companies, 9 companies will be excluded by applying the turnover filter of 10 times. The ld. AR has submitted that for the Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessee's turnover is Rs.16.35 Crores and therefore the companies which are having more than Rs.164 Crores turnover should be excluded. 15. The ld. DR has relied upon the order of the TPO/A.O and submitted that the turnover has no role in determining the comparability and margins of the comparable companies. 16. We have considered the rival submissions and relevant material on record. Since this issue is common to the issue for the Assessment Year 2005-06, therefore by applying the multiple of 10 on both sides, the companies who are having the turnover of more than Rs.164 Crores are as under : Sl.No. Name of Company 1. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. (Seg.) 2. Helios & Matheson Information Technolog....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) Globalsoft P. Ltd, supra) can be taken as a good precedent. Findings of the Tribunal in the case Hewlett- Packard (India) Globalsoft P. Ltd, (supra) in so far as the comparables sought to be excluded by the assessee were as under : 1) "Celestial Labs Ltd. 42. As far as this company is concerned, the stand of the assessee is that it is absolutely a research & development company. In this regard, the following submissions were made:- * In the Director's Report (page 20 of PB-Il), it is stated that "the company has applied for Income Tax concession for in-house R&D centre expenditure at Hyderabad under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act." * As per the Notes to Accounts - Schedule 15, under "Deferred Revenue Expenditure" (page 31 of PB-II), it is mentioned that, "Expenditure incurred on research and development of new products has been treated as deferred revenue expenditure and the same has been written off in 10 years equally yearly installments from the year in which it is incurred." An amount of Rs. 11,692,020/- has been debited to the Profit and Loss Account as "Deferred Revenue Expenditure" (page ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the discovery is in relation to a software discovery of new drugs. Moreover the company also is owner of the IPR. There is however a reference to development of a molecule to treat cancer using bioinformatics tools for which patenting process was also being pursued. As explained earlier it is a diversified company and therefore cannot be considered as comparable functionally with that of the Assessee. There has been no attempt made to identify and eliminate and make adjustment of the profit margins so that the difference in functional comparability can be eliminated. By not resorting to such a process of making adjustment, the TPO has rendered this company as not qualifying for comparability. We therefore accept the plea of the Assessee in this regard." 44. It was submitted that the learned DR in the above case vehemently argued that this company is into research in pharmaceutical products. The ITAT concluded that this company is owner of IPR, it has software for discovery of new drugs and has developed molecule to treat cancer. In the ultimate analysis, the ITAT did not consider this company as a comparable in clinical trial segment, for the reason that this compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estial labs to the above clarification of the TPO. The TPO without any basis has however concluded that the business mentioned in the DRHP are the services or businesses that would be started by utilizing the funds garnered though the Initial Public Offer (IPO) and thus in no way connected with business operations of the company during FY 06-07. We are of the view that in the light of the submissions made by the Assessee and the fact that this company was basically/admittedly in clinical research and manufacture of bio products and other products, there is no clear basis on which the TPO concluded that this company was mainly in the business of providing software development services. We therefore accept the plea of the Assessee that this company ought not to have been considered as comparable." 2) "E-Zest Solutions Ltd. 14.1 This company was selected by the TPO as a comparable. Before the TPO, the assessee had objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable on the ground that it was functionally different from the assessee. The TPO had rejected the objections raised by the assessee on the ground that as per t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ftware development services performed by the assessee. From the details on record, we find that while the assessee is into software development services, this company i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd., is rendering product development services and high end technical services which come under the category of KPO services. It has been held by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Capital I-Q Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. Supra) that KPO services are not comparable to software development services and are therefore not comparable. Following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the aforesaid case, we hold that this company, i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd. be omitted from the set of comparables for the period under consideration in the case on hand. The A.O. /TPO is accordingly directed." 3) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 12.1 This was a comparable selected by the TPO. Before the TPO, the assessee objected to the inclusion of the company in the set of comparables, on the grounds of turnover and brand attributable profit margin. The TPO, however, rejected these objections raised by the assessee on the grounds tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee's is that Infosys Technologies Ltd is not functionally comparable since it owns significant intangible and has huge revenues from software products. It is also seen that the break up of revenue from software services and software products is not available. In this view of the matter, we hold that this company ought to be omitted from the set of comparable companies. It is ordered accordingly." 4) KALS Information Systems Ltd. "46. As far as this company is concerned, the contention of the assessee is that the aforesaid company has revenues from both software development and software products. Besides the above, it was also pointed out that this company is engaged in providing training. It was also submitted that as per the annual report, the salary cost debited under the software development expenditure was Q 45,93,351. The same was less than 25% of the software services revenue and therefore the salary cost filter test fails in this case. Reference was made to the Pune Bench Tribunal's decision of the ITAT in the case of Bindview India Private Limited Vs. DCI, ITA No 1386/PN/10 wherein KALS as comparab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aforesaid companies are not comparable companies in the case of software development services provider. The nature of services rendered by the Assessee in this appeal and the Assessee in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra) are one and the same. This fact would be clear from the fact that the very same 26 companies were chosen as comparable in the case of the Assessee as well as in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra). The following were the relevant observations in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra): 22. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that these two companies are also to be excluded from the list of comparables on the basis of the finding of this Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz Research & Development India Pvt. Ltd. dt 22.2.2013, wherein at pages 17 and 22 of its order the distinctions as to why these companies should be excluded are brought out. He submitted that the facts of the case before us are similar and, therefore, the said decision is applicable to the assessee's case also. 23. The learned DR however objected to the exclus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fully perused and considered the material on record. We find merit in the contentions of the assessee for exclusion of this company from the set of comparables. It is seen that this company is engaged both in software development and product development services. There is no information on the segmental bifurcation of revenue from sale of product and software services. The TPO appears to have adopted this company as a comparable without demonstrating how the company satisfies the software development sales 75% of the total revenue filter adopted by him. Another major flaw in the comparability analysis carried out by the TPO is that he adopted comparison of the consolidated financial statements of Wipro with the stand alone financials of the assessee; which is not an appropriate comparison. 13.4.2 We also find that this company owns intellectual property in the form of registered patents and several pending applications for grant of patents. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.227/Bang/2010) has held that a company owning intangibles cannot be compared to a low risk captive s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... margin." 49. Besides the above, it was pointed out that this company has related party transactions which is more than the permitted level and therefore should not be taken for comparability purposes. The submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee was that if the above company should not be considered as comparable. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the TPO. 50. We have considered the submissions and are of the view that the plea of the assessee that the aforesaid company should not be treated as comparables was considered by the Tribunal in Capgemini India Ltd (supra) where the assessee was software developer. The Tribunal, in the said decision referred to by the ld. counsel for the assessee, has accepted that this company was not comparable in the case of the assessees engaged in software development services business. Accepting the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee, we hold that the aforesaid company should be excluded as comparables." 20. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in similar set of facts, these companies are directed to be excluded from the list of comparables.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he operating revenues increased 63.03% which indicates that it was an extraordinary year for this company. Even the growth of software industry for the previous year as per NASSCOM was 32%. The growth rate of this company was double the industry average. In view of the above, it was argued that this company ought to have been rejected as a comparable. 41. We have given a careful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the Assessee and are of the view that the same deserves to be accepted. The reasons given by the Assessee for excluding this company as comparable are found to be acceptable. The decision of ITAT (Mumbai) in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) also supports the plea of the assessee. We therefore accept the plea of the Assessee to reject this company as a comparable." 10) Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg) : "26. Now taking up the question of exclusion of Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg), it is true that the decision of Motorola Solutions (India) P. Ltd (supra) also was for the very same year and also on software development services sector. This Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n we are of the opinion that Flextronics Software Solutions Ltd (seg) could not be considered as a proper comparable. We direct exclusion thereof." 11) Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd : "16. The next point made out by the assessee is with regard to the inclusion of items at (9) and (11) namely Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., and KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg). The primary plea raised by the assessee to assail the inclusion of the aforesaid two companies from the list of comparables is to be effect that they are functionally incomparable and therefore, are liable to be excluded. In sum and substance, the plea set up by the assessee is that both the aforesaid concerns are engaged in development and sale of software products which is functionally different from the services undertaken by the assessee in its IT-services segment. 17. As per the discussion in para 6.3.2. of the order of the TPO, the reason advanced for including KALS Information Systems Ltd., is to the effect that the said concern's application software segment is engaged in the development of software which can be considered as comparable to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsider the said concern as functionally comparable in the instant assessment year. 19. In our considered opinion, the point raised by the assessee is potent in as much as it is quite evident that the said concern has not been found to be functionally comparable with the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment year and in the present year also, on the basis of the Annual Report, referred to in the written submissions addressed to the lower authorities, the assessee has correctly asserted out that the said concern was inter alia engaged in sale of software products, which was quite distinct from the activity undertaken by the assessee in the IT Services segment. At the time of hearing, neither is there any argument put forth by the Revenue and nor is there any discussion emerging from the orders of the lower authorities as to in what manner the functional profile of the said concern has undergone a change from that in the immediately preceding year. Therefore, having regard to the factual aspects brought out by the assessee, it is correctly asserted that the application software segment of the said concern is not comparable to the assessee's segment of IT ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ii) Page 60 of the Annual Report of the company for F.Y. 2007-08 indicates that this company, is predominantly engaged in 'Outsourced Software Product Development Services' for independent software vendors and enterprises. (iii) Website extracts indicate that this company is in the business of product design services. (iv) The ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Telecordia Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) while discussing the comparability of another company, namely Lucid Software Ltd. had rendered a finding that in the absence of segmental information, a company be taken into account for comparability analysis. This principle is squarely applicable to the company presently under consideration, which is into product development and product design services and for which the segmental data is not available. The learned Authorised Representative prays that in view of the above, this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd. be omitted from the list of comparables. 17.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative support the action of the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables. 17.3 We have heard the rival s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15). 110. Ld. DR relied on the order of TPO and submitted that TPO considered the companies software services segment details only. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the case. 111. Ld. TPO has completely ignored the extraordinary business circumstances pointed out by assessee for which necessary adjustment was required to be made in accordance with Rule 10B(3) of Income Tax Rules. However, since this adjustment was not possible, therefore, this company should not have been included in the list of comparables. Further, we find that the company owns IPR and has branded products which also distinguishes it from the assessee and, therefore, keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd.(supra), we direct the ld. TPO to exclude this comparable from the list of comparables. If we follow the coordinate bench decision in the case of Motorala Solution (India) P. Ltd, Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd needs to be excluded. However, as mentioned by us at para 24 above, where the contested comparable formed part of assessee's own study, then th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of niche product and development services which is entirely different from the assessee company. We agree with the contention of the learned Authorised Representative that the nature of product developed and services provided by this company are different from the assessee as have been narrated in para 6.6 above. Even the segmental details for revenue sales have not been provided by the TPO so as to consider it as a comparable party for comparing the profit ratio from product and services. Thus, on these facts, we are unable to treat this company as fit for comparability analysis for determining the arm's length price for the assessee, hence, should be excluded from the list of comparable portion." As can be seen from the extracts of the Annual Report of this company produced before us, the facts pertaining to Tata Elxsi have not changed from Assessment Year 2007-08 to Assessment Year 2008-09. We, therefore, hold that this company is not to be considered for inclusion in the set of comparables in the case on hand. It is ordered accordingly." 15) Thirdware Solutions Ltd. (Segment) : "15.1 This company was propo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....une Tribunal (supra), we direct that this company be omitted from the list of comparables for the period under consideration in the case on hand." 13. In so far as Megasoft Ltd, is concerned, findings of the Tribunal in the above case were as under : Megasoft Ltd : 24. This company was chosen as a comparable by the TPO. The objection of the assessee is that there are two segments in this company viz., (i) software development segment, and (ii) software product segment. The Assessee is a pure software services provider and not a software product developer. According to the Assessee there is no break up of revenue between software products and software services business on a standalone basis of this comparable. The TPO relied on information which was given by this company in which this company had explained that it has two divisions viz., BLUEALLY DIVISION and XIUS-BCGI DIVISION. Xius-BCGI Division does the business of product software. This company develops packaged products for the wireless and convergent telecom industry. These products are sold as packaged products to customers. While implementing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts i.e., results pertaining to software services segment of this company was: Segmental Operating Revenues Rs.63,71,32,544 Segmental Operating Expenses Rs.51,75,13,211 Operating Profi Rs.11,96,19,333 OP/TC (PLI) 23.11% 26. It was reiterated that in the given circumstances only PLI of software service segment viz., 23.11% ought to have been selected for comparison. 27. It was further submitted that the learned TPO in case of other comparable, similarly placed, had adopted the margins of only the software service segment for comparability purposes. Consistent with such stand, it was submitted that the margins of the software segment only should be adopted in the case of Megasoft also, in contrast to the entity level margins. 28. Computation of the net margin for Mega Soft Ltd. Is therefore remitted to the file of the TPO to compute the correct margin by following the direction of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd." 23. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to compute the correct margin of Mega Soft Ltd., as directed by the Tribunal in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e company to its parent company on vesting of the relevant stock options / RSUs. 3.0 The Assessing Officer erred in not following the ratio of the decision of the honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench in the case of Biocon Limited 115 TTJ 649 and the Bangalore bench of the honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in case of Novo Nordisk India (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2), Bangalore. The Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that the said amount is in the nature of employee compensation expenditure, is not a capital expenditure and has been expended wholly for the business of the company." 21. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee did not claim the deduction for a sum paid in respect of Employee Stock Option which was paid by the assessee to its parent company in lieu of the shares allotted to the employees of the assessee under Employeees Stock Option Scheme. The ld. AR has submitted that for the Assessment Year 2008-09, the Tribunal vide its order dt.30.8.2016 in ITA No.1586/Bang/2012 has decided this issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee has raised this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ult, the cross appeals for the A.Y. 2005-06 as well as the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2007-08 AE partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 31st day of Oct., 2016. ============= Document 1 OP to SI. No. Company Name Sales Total (Rs.cr.) Cost% 1 Bodhtree consulting Itd 3.87 24.85 2 Lanco Global Systems ltd 6.11 13.65 34 Exensys Software Solutions ltd 7.3 70.68 Sankhya Infotech ltd 12.99 27.39 5 Sasken Network Systems ltd 14.44 16.64 67 Four soft ltd 15.94 22.98 Thirdware Solution limited 29.11 66.09 8 RS Software (India) Ltd 81.69 8.07 9 Geometric Software Solutions Co.ltd 95.44 20.34 10 Tata Elxsi Limited (seg) 146.46 24.35 11 Visual soft Technolgies ltd (seg) 185.43 23.52 12 Sasken communicaton Technologies ltd(seg) 189.05 14.42 13 Igate(seg.) 406 4.32 14 Flextronics (seg) 457.45 32.19 15 L&T Infotech 562.45 10.33 16 Satyam 3464.2 29.44 17 Infosys avg. 6859.7 42.83 26.59% Document 2 Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O grossly erred in law in deviating from the uncontrolled party transaction definition as per the Income-tax Rules and arbitrarily applying a 25% related party criteria in accepting/rejecting comparables. Document 4 f) The TPO/AO also erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily rejecting companies with different year ending (i.e., other than 31 March 2007) and inconsistently applying such filter. g) The TPO/AO grossly erred on facts in arbitrarily rejecting companies having software development revenue less than 75% of total operating revenue and inconsistently applying such filter, without considering the specific segmental results. h) The TPO/AO also erred on facts in arbitrarily rejecting companies based on their financial results without considering functional comparability. i) The TPO/AO erred on facts and in law in considering a set of 'secret data', i.e. data which was not available in public domain, in arriving at a fresh set of companies using his power under section 133(6), which is grossly unjustified. 5 Erroneous data used by the TPO/AO a) The AO/TPO has erred in law in using data, which was not contemporaneous and which wa....