OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 181/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 October 2022AY 2017-184 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that M/s. E-Infochips Ltd. was not a valid comparable due to amalgamation. The other three companies (M/s. Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd., Exilant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and E-Infochips Ltd.) were excluded for being engaged in different activities and lack of financial data.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an assessment order concerning arm's length price adjustment for software development and support services. The appeal focused on excluding four specific companies from the list of comparables used in the transfer pricing analysis.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of certain companies as comparables in the transfer pricing assessment. This involved determining if their business activities and corporate events made them unsuitable for comparison.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI G.D.PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani – AR
For Respondent: Shri Mohit Jain – CIT-DR
Hearing: 17/08/2022Pronounced: 07/10/2022

ORDER

Per S.S.Godara, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 arises against the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi’s assessment dated 30.01.2022, framed in furtherance to CIT(DRP-3), Mumbai-2’s directions dated 07.12.2021, in TIN order no.ITBA/TPO/F/92CA3/2020-21/1029839432(1), involving proceedings under section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act(in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

A.Y. 2017-18 Optiva India Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (A)

2.

Learned counsel states at the Bar at the outset itself that the assessee only presses for its ground nos.3.1 to 3.2 and 3.8 to 3.9 seeking to excluding M/s. E-Infochips Ltd., Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd., Exilant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and E-Infochips Ltd., ; respectively from the array of comparables so far as correctness of arm’s length price “ALP adjustment of Rs.9,04,85,400/-, in its software development and support services, is concerned. We thus restrict our instant adjudication to the limited extent of admissibility of the foregoing four comparables only.

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to vehement rival submissions qua the instant limited issue and find force in the assessee’s stand. It is noted during the course of hearing the first and foremost entity herein M/s.E-Infochips Ltd., had undergone an amalgamation as per honourable Gujarat high court’s approved scheme dated 29.03.2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 involving M/s.Small Guard Systems and M/s.nGin Technologies Pvt. Ltd. That being the case, we hold that the foregoing extraordinary event of amalgamation renders M/s.E-Infochips Ltd., as not a valid comparable as already held in tribunals’ co-ordinate bench’s order in assessee’s appeal itself in decided on 21.07.2022 for AY 2016-17. We thus adopt judicial consistency to exclude M/s. E-Infochips from the array of comparables.

A.Y. 2017-18 Optiva India Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (A)

4.

The very factual position continuous regarding the latter three entities herein M/s.Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd., Exilant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., ad E-Infochips Ltd., wherein the learned co-ordinate bench has inter-alia concluded that they are engaged in other computer related activities than software services, property development and varied services and lack of availability of financials; respectively. We thus follow judicial consistency and direct exclusion of these remaining three companies from the list of comparables. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation at the TPO’s end shall follow as per law.

No other ground or arguments has been raised before us. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent indicated in above terms.

More judgments on Section 92CA(3)

All 702 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →