Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
O R D E R
Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.02.2022 of National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer, “AO” in short) passed u/s.143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in relation to Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee in engaged in the business of provision of Information Technology enabled Services (ITeS), to its wholly owned holding company. In terms of the provisions of Sec.92-A of the Act, the assessee and its wholly
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 19 owned holding company were Associated Enterprises ("AEs"). In terms of Sec.92B(1) of the Act, the transaction of providing ITeS by the Assessee to it’s AE 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. 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 of ITeS by the assessee to its AE.
As far as the provision of ITeS 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/Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for the purpose of comparison. The OP/OC of the assessee was arrived at 14.82% by the assessee in its TP study. The operating income was Rs.31,39,00,000/- and the Operating Cost was Rs.27,30,00,000/-. The Operating profit (Operating income – Operating cost
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 19 was Rs.4,09,00,000/-. Thus the OP/TC was arrived at 14.82%. The assessee chose companies who are engaged in providing similar services such as the assessee. The assessee identified 11 companies whose average arithmetic mean of profit margin was comparable with the Operating margin of the assessee. The assessee therefore claimed that the price it charged in the international transaction should be considered as at Arm’s Length.
The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to whom the determination of ALP was referred to by the AO under section 92CA of the Act, accepted TNMM as the MAM and also used the same PLI for comparison i.e., OP/TC. He also selected comparable companies from database. The TPO accepted some companies chosen by the assessee as comparable companies. The TPO on his own identified some other companies as comparable resulting in a final set of 13 companies as comparable companies with the assessee company and worked out the average arithmetic mean of their profit margins as follows: Comparables selected by the TPO and arm’s length range: Weighted average Sl. No. Name of comparable company unadjusted margin 1 Sundaram Business Services Limited 2.08% 2 Jindal Intellicom Limited 7.41% 3 Fuzen Software Pvt. Ltd. 15.93% 4 Microland Limited 17.53% 5 Tech Mahindra Business Services Limited 22.37% 6 Datamatics Business Solutions 22.64% 7 Infosys BPM Services Pvt Ltd 24.37% Vitae International Accounting Services Pvt. 8 27.13% Ltd. 9 Manipal Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. 27.41% 10 CES Limited 31.45% 11 Ultramarine & Pigment Limited (Segmental) 34.41% 12 S P I Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. 36.95%
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 19
13 Inteq BPO Services Pvt Ltd 39.51% 35th Percentile 22.37% Median 24.37% 65th Percentile 27.41%
The TPO computed the Addition to total income on account of adjustment to ALP as follows:
Particulars Amount (INR) Arm's length median margin as per comparable set 24.37% Operating Cost (OC) 273,355,139 Arm's Length Price (ALP') = 124.37% of OC 339,971,787 Price Received 313,855,118 Short fall being adjustment u/s. 92CA 26,116,669 Thus a sum of Rs.2,61,16,669/- was added to the total income of the assessee on account of determination of ALP for provision of SWD services by the assessee to its AE.
The assessee filed objections before the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft assessment order passed by the AO wherein the addition suggested by the TPO as adjustment to ALP was added to the total income of the assessee by the AO. The assessee filed objections before the DRP and the DRP gave certain directions. 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, the assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 19
At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that out of the 13 companies which were chosen by the TPO as comparable companies, the DRP did not interfere with the selection of the comparable companies by the TPO. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that out of the 13 companies chosen by the TPO, the assessee prays for exclusion of four companies on the ground that the turnover of these companies was more than 200 Crores and therefore cannot be compared with the assessee whose turnover is only 31.39 Crores. In this regard, our attention as brought to certain judicial decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Bengaluru to which we will make reference in the later part of this order. The four companies which the assessee seeks to exclude and their turnover are as follows:
Comparable Turnover in crores Tech Mahindra Business Services Limited 707.60 Microland Limited 530.55 Infosys BPM Limited 2,940 S P I Technologies India Private Limited 391.54
The learned Counsel for the assessee also brought to the notice that the AO in choosing comparable companies applied that a lower turnover of Rs.1 Crore and below has a filter for choosing the comparable companies. It was submitted by the same logic the TPO ought to have excluded companies having high turnover. Learned DR submitted that high turnover cannot be the basis to exclude comparable companies, if they are functionally found to be comparable.
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 19
We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 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. Vs. DCIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 44 (Bang-Trib) order dated 13.10.2017, took note of the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Sysarris Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 67 Taxmann.com 243 (Bangalore-Trib) wherein the Tribunal after noticing the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital (supra) and the decision to the contrary in the case of CIT Vs. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., Tax Appeal No.18 of 2015 dated 16.9.2015 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 were contrary views on the issue and hence the view favourable to the assessee laid down in the case of Pentair Water (supra) should be adopted. The following were the conclusions of the Tribunal in the case of Dell International (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, 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 IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 7 of 19 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, when companies which arc loss making are excluded from comparables, then the super profit making companies should also be excluded. For the purpose of classification of companies on the basis of net sales or turnover, we find that a reasonable classification has to be made. Dun & Bradstreet & Bradstreet and NASSCOM have given different ranges. Taking the Indian scenario into consideration, we feel that the classification made by Dun & Bradstreet is more suitable and reasonable. In view of the same, we hold that the turnover filter is very important and the companies having a turnover of Rs.1.00 crore to 200 crores have to be taken as a particular range and the assessee being in that range having turnover of 8.15 crores, the companies which also have turnover of 1.00 to 200.00 crores only should be taken into consideration for the purpose of making TP study.”
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.”
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 8 of 19
10. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 Taxmann.com 263 (Banglore-Tribunal), 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 were the relevant observations:
17.7. We have considered the rival submissions. The substantial question of law (Question No.1 to 3) which was framed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt.Ltd., (supra) was as to whether 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 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 turnover was much higher compared to that the Assessee.
17.8. In view of the above conclusion, there may not be any necessity to examine as to whether the decision rendered in the case of Genisys Integrating (supra) by the ITAT Bangalore Bench should continue to be followed. Since arguments were advanced on the correctness of the decisions rendered by the ITAT Mumbai and Bangalore Benches taking
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 9 of 19 a view contrary to that taken in the case of Genisys Integrating (supra), we proceed to examine the said issue also. On this issue, the first aspect which we notice is that the decision rendered in the case of Genisys Integrating (supra) was the earliest decision rendered on the issue of comparability of companies on the basis of turnover in Transfer Pricing cases. The decision was rendered as early as 5.8.2011. 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 Pvt.Ltd. (supra) are to be regarded as per incurium as these decisions ignore a binding co-ordinate 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 by the learned DR before us cannot be the basis to hold that high turnover is not relevant criteria for deciding on comparability of companies in determination of ALP under the Transfer Pricing regulations under the Act. For the reasons given above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) 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).
11. In view of the aforesaid decision, we hold that four companies listed in the earlier paragraph of this order, whose turnover in the current year is more than Rs.200 Crores should be excluded from the list of comparable companies.
12. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that two other companies out of the 13 companies chosen as a comparable company by the TPO viz.,
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 10 of 19 CES Ltd., and SPI Technologies India Private Limited should be excluded on the basis that these two companies are not functionally comparable.
13. In so far as the company CES Ltd., is concerned, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee that this company provides both knowledge process outsourcing and business process outsourcing related services which are high end services and includes technology services such as product engineering, cloud and infrastructure and data analytics. It also provides state of art and business solutions and hence cannot be compared to a routine technology enabled services provider such as the assessee. It was also submitted that the segmental information with regard to KPO/ BPO services is not provided. Reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the assessee on the decision of the ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Transperfect solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT order dated 29.07.2022 and another decision of ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Credence Resource Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No.133/PUN/2021), order dated 18.06.2021. Both the aforesaid decisions relate to Assessment Year 2016-17 and were rendered in the case of an ITeS company such as the assessee in the present appeal. On the comparability of CES Ltd., the ITAT Pune in the case of Transperfect Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., (supra), the Tribunal held as follows: “(2) CES limited : 8.1 This comparable was also chosen by the TPO. The assessee’s objection that this company was engaged in rendering KPO services as well was not approved by the TPO, who went with its inclusion. 8.2 The Annual report of this company shows that it is engaged in both the IT and IT enabled services. As the company has segmental accounts, the TPO has considered only IT enabled services segment for the purposes of comparability. However, what is important to note in the instant context is that the assessee is rendering only
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 11 of 19 translation services etc., which fall within the overall domain of the BPO services. As against this, CES Limited is engaged in providing both BPO and KPO services as has been reported by it to the Registrar of companies in the requisite form. The Pune Benches of the Tribunal in Credence Resource Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.133/PUN/2021) vide its order dated 18-06-2021 has noted that CES Limited is rendering both BPO and KPO services, discussing this issue at page 19 of the order. In view of the fact that the assessee is engaged in rendering only BPO services, CES Limited providing both BPO and KPO services, cannot therefore be held as comparable. We, therefore, direct to delete this company from the list of comparables.”
14. Learned DR submitted that the aforesaid decision was in relation to Assessment Year 2016-17 whereas the case of the assessee in this appeal is in reference to Assessment Year 2017-18. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the functional profile of the comparable company as well as the assessee remains the same for both Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 and therefore the decisions cited above are applicable to Assessment Year 2017-18 also.
We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to set aside the question of comparability of CES Ltd., to the TPO/AO to examine as to whether the functional profile of the assessee and the assessees in the decisions cited by the learned AR remains the same in Assessment Year 2017-18 as it was in Assessment Year 2016-17.
The next company the assessee seeks to exclude is Manipal Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, it was submitted that this company is engaged in provision of multiple high-end services including KPO activity
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 12 of 19 like Design Services, Animation. It was submitted that no segmental details were available in the financial statements on the variety of services provided by this company like Design Services, Animation. Reliance was placed on the decision of the ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Credence Resource Management Pvt. Ltd., (supra) wherein this company was excluded by the Pune Bench with the following observations:
“8. The assessee submits that the Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited is functionally different from the assessee which is involved in provision of ITes services. As per the annual report of the company, the activity undertaken by the company is in the nature of pre-press activities which is not comparable to the assessee. That further in the website of the company, it is engaged in the diversified set of activities which involves graphic solutions, packaging brand management, digital publishing and digital content solutions. Therefore, the assessee submits that this company should be rejected from the final set of comparables companies.
9. The TPO was of the opinion that in this company i.e. Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited, 90% of the revenue is earned from ITes which is similar to that of the assessee company. The TPO further observed that most of the information provided by the assessee was from website and it cannot be said reliable source of information as any company while projecting itself in public domain tries to shows its diverse functioning and range of products so as to create a brand image of itself. With these observations, the contention of the assessee was rejected and the company was taken as comparable company.
That before the Ld. DRP, objections have been raised by the assessee which are at running Page No.34 of the appeal memo and IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 13 of 19 therein, apart fromreiterating the submissions made before the TPO, the assessee has stated that as per the online advertising laws and guidelines provided by the Advertising Standard Council of India, advertisements are based on principle of truthfulness and honesty of representation and there cannot be any misleading advertisement. That further, since the audited financial statements do not provide detailed description of operations/products in which the company deals, the website can be referred to for the analysis of functions performed by the company. The Ld. DRP vide Para (c) of Page No.67 to 70 of its order and as per reasoning therein, had upheld the findings of the TPO and included Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited in the final set of comparables companies. That again the prime observation of the Ld. DRP in this regard was that more than 90% of the total revenue of the operation of the company comes from ITes.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the annual report of the company at Volume –II, Page 1279 onwards, Page 1302 having notes of accounts. The Ld. Counsel vehemently submitted that on perusal of the annual report, notes of accounts, nothing can be stated whether at all this company i.e. Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited is engaged in the business of call center or not. The realm of ITes involves various activities and on general principle the Revenue cannot say that since majority of the earning of the said company comes from ITes, it is comparable company with that of the assessee company.
Placing strong reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, dated 10.08.2015 copy of which is placed before us, the Ld. Counsel brought to our notice at Para 31 wherein the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court observed that the Tribunal had held that once a service falls under the category of ITes then there is no sub- classification of segment. Thus, according to the Tribunal, no differentiation could be made between the entities rendering ITes. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court rejecting such view of the Tribunal had held that such a view, if upheld, would be contrary to the fundamental rationale of determining ALP by comparing controlled transactions/entities with similar uncontrolled transactions/entities. ITes encompasses a wide spectrum of services that use Information Technology based delivery. Such service could include rendering
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 14 of 19 highly technical services by qualified technical personnel involving advanced skills and knowledge, such as engineering, design and support. While, on the other end of the spectrum ITes would also include voice based call centers that render routine customer support for their clients. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as follows for the sake of completeness: “………….Clearly, characteristics of the service rendered would be dissimilar. Further, both service providers cannot be considered to be functionally similar. Their business environment would be entirely different, the demand and supply for the services would be different, the assets and capital employed would differ, the competence required to operate the two services would be different. Each of the aforesaid factors would have a material bearing on the profitability of the two entities. Treating the said entities to be comparables only for the reason that they use Information Technology for the delivery of their services, would, in our opinion, be erroneous.
It has been pointed out that whilst the Tribunal in Willis Processing Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) held that no distinction could be made between KPO and BPO service providers, however, a contrary view had been taken by several benches of the Tribunal in other cases. In Capital IQ Information System India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (IT) [2013] 32 taxmann.com 21 and Lloyds TSB Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, (ITA No. 5928/Mum/2012 dated 21th November 2012), the Hyderabad and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal respectively accepted the view that a BPO service provider could not be compared with a KPO service provider.
The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Maersk Global Centers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) struck a different cord. The Special Bench of the Tribunal held that even though there appears to be a difference between BPO and KPO Services, the line of difference is very thin. The Tribunal was of the view that there could be a significant overlap in their activities and it may be difficult to classify services strictly as falling under the categoryof either a BPO or a KPO. The Tribunal also observed that one of the key success factors of the BPO Industry is its ability to move up the IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 15 of 19 value chain through KPO service offering. For the aforesaid reasons, the Special Bench of the Tribunal held that ITeS Services could not be bifurcated as BPO and KPO Services for the purpose of comparability analysis in the first instance. The Tribunal proceeded to hold that a relatively equal degree of comparability can be achieved by selecting potential comparables on a broad functional analysis at ITeS level and that the comparables so selected could be put to further test by comparing specific functions performed in the international transactions with uncontrolled transactions to attain relatively equal degree of comparability.
We have reservations as to the Tribunal's aforesaid view in Maersk Global Centers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). As indicated above, the expression 'BPO' and 'KPO' are, plainly, understood in the sense that whereas, BPO does not necessarily involve advanced skills and knowledge; KPO, on the other hand, would involve employment of advanced skills and knowledge for providing services. Thus, the expression 'KPO' in common parlance is used to indicate an ITeS provider providing a completely different nature of service than any other BPO service provider. A KPO service provider would also be functionally different from other BPO service providers, inasmuch as the responsibilities undertaken, the activities performed, the quality of resources employed would be materially different. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree that broadly ITeS sector can be used for selecting comparables without making a conscious selection as to the quality and nature of the content of services. Rule 10B(2)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 mandates that the comparability of controlled and uncontrolled transactions be judged with reference to service/product characteristics. This factor cannot be undermined by using a broad classification of ITeS which takes within its fold various types of services with completely different content and value. Thus, where the tested party is not a KPO service provider, an entity rendering KPO services cannot be considered as a comparable for the purposes of Transfer Pricing analysis. The perception that a BPO service provider may have the ability to move up the value chain by offering KPO services cannot be a ground for assessing the transactions relating to services
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 16 of 19 rendered by the BPO service provider by benchmarking it with the transactions of KPO services providers. The object is to ascertain the ALP of the service rendered and not of a service (higher in value chain) that may possibly be rendered subsequently.
As pointed out by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Maersk Global Centers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there may be cases where an entity may be rendering a mix of services some of which may be functionally comparable to a KPO while other services may not. In such cases a classification of BPO and KPO may not be feasible. Clearly, no straitjacket formula can be applied. In cases where the categorization of services rendered cannot be defined with certainty, it would be apposite to employ the broad functionality test and then exclude uncontrolled entities, which are found to be materially dissimilar in aspects and features that have a bearing on the profitability of those entities. However, where the controlled transactions are clearly in the nature of lower-end ITeS such as Call Centers etc. for rendering data processing not involving domain knowledge, inclusion of any KPO service provider as a comparable would not be warranted and the transfer pricing study must take that into account at the threshold.
As pointed out earlier, the transfer pricing analysis must serve the broad object of benchmarking an international transaction for determining an ALP. The methodology necessitates that the comparables must be similar in material aspects. The comparability must be judged on factors such as product/service characteristics, functions undertaken, assets used, risks assumed. This is essential to ensure the efficacy of the exercise. There is sufficient flexibility available within the statutory framework to ensure a fair ALP.”
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted therefore, it is clear that merely because two companies are doing ITes services, on general categorization comparability is not permitted and one has to look into the specific services rendered in the spectrum of ITes and for this reason, the said company i.e. Manipal Digital Systems Private
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 17 of 19 Limited is not a comparable company with that of the assessee company since absolutely functionally different. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that the TPO should have specifically stated why he has selected this company as comparable with that of the assessee company since the onus is on him to give reason for such inclusion. The logic was shown from the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Tasty Bite Eatables Limited Vs. ACIT, for the assessment year 2014-15 dated 03.06.2021 wherein it was held that since the comparable chosen by the assessee, the onus is upon it to prove the functional comparability of this company. Extending the same logic, the Ld. Counsel submitted that it was also for the TPO to explain the reasons for inclusion of this company i.e. Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited since it was chosen as comparable by him.
We are of the considered view on going through the order of the TPO, findings of the Ld. DRP and the various judicial pronouncements placed on record, first of all the Revenue has selected Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited as comparable to that of the assessee company based on the earningof the company from ITes. However, there is no segmental specification provided neither by the TPO nor by the Ld. DRP for the reason of such inclusion of this company in the final set of comparable companies with that of the assessee company. In the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court (supra.), it is very much clear in the wide spectrum of ITes if two companies are to be comparable one has to look into the characteristic of service or business provided under ITes by them. This exercise was not done by the Department in this case. We also opine that as per Indian Council for Advertising, the online advertising has to be published on true and honest disclosure basis and therefore, when proper documentation of activities are not physically available, in such scenario, referring the website for information is correct option and the information therein cannot be doubted. These are all multi-national companies and certain amount of honesty has to be attributed to them since all are functioning as per relevant rules and laws. With these observations and respectfully, following the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court (supra.) we direct the AO/TPO to exclude this company i.e. Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited from the final set of comparables with that of the assessee company.”
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 18 of 19
Learned DR submitted that the aforesaid decision was in relation to Assessment Year 2016-17 whereas the case of the assessee in this appeal is in reference to Assessment Year 2017-18. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the functional profile of the comparable company as well as the assessee remains the same for both Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 and therefore the decisions cited above are applicable to Assessment Year 2017-18 also.
We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to set aside the question of comparability of Manipal Digital Systems Pvt.Ltd., to the TPO/AO to examine as to whether the functional profile of the assessee and the assessees in the decisions cited by the learned AR remains the same in Assessment Year 2017-18 as it was in Assessment Year 2016-17.
The assessee did not press for adjudication any other ground except exclusion of comparable companies as set out above.
The TPO is directed to compute the ALP of the international transaction as per the direction given in this order after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. Appeal of the assessee is accordingly treated as partly allowed.
IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 19 of 19
In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.
Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.