DCIT 3(4), MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., MUMBAI

Sr. Nature of transaction Transaction Method No. amount (₹) 1. Provision of software and 45359,63,87,176 TNMM consultancy services 2. Availing of services 1390,75,49,727 TNMM 3. Interest received on amount of 11,199,637 Other method loan outstanding 4. Guarantee fees 295,453,615 Other method

Sr. Name of company Average NPI No.

The assessee has corroborated the above with a peer group analysis and internal TNMM as detailed below:-

(₹ in crore) Name of Company Operating Operating Operating OP/TC Income Expenses Profit Infosys Ltd. 47,300 34,008 13,292 39.08% HCL Technologies Ltd. 36,701 28,611 8,089 28.27% Tech Mahindra Ltd. 191,627 163,159 28,468 17.45% Wipro Ltd. 41,210 32,788 8,422 25.69% TCS India 74,857 53,940 20,917 38.78%

On the basis of the above comparison carried out, the assessee has considered its transactions to be at ALP.

“20. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. From the grounds raised by the Revenue, the following three issues arise for consideration – (i) what should be the appropriate PLI; (ii) whether cost of outsourcing / sub–contracting to the TCS should be considered for computing the margin; and (iii) whether the alternative benchmarking furnished by the assessee by treating the AEs as tested party with comparables in the same geographical locations is acceptable. On a careful perusal of the facts on record as well as submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties in the course of hearing as well as in the written note, we are of the view that the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the aforesaid issues are unassailable. As regards the issue of appropriate PLI, we are of the view that considering the nature of activity performed by the assessee as well as the AEs, it cannot be said that the A.Es are not bearing any risk. Rather the facts on record reveal that the AEs performed the role of risk bearing distributors. It is well brought out by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order that the AEs are bearing credit Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. risk and risk of default by client. In fact, the assessee through proper evidences has demonstrated instances where the credit risk with reference to part cancellation of contract has been borne by the AEs without compensation from the assessee. The documentary evidences in this regard furnished by the assessee were thoroughly examined not only by learned Commissioner (Appeals) but they were also produced before us. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it becomes clear that significant marketing functions are being performed and distribution and marketing risk are being taken by the AEs. On examination of the financials of the subsidiaries it is revealed that some subsidiaries are still making loss at net level which signifies that some risk is being borne by the AEs. It has further been brought on record that the manpower base of AEs performed various functions relating to marketing as well as client co– ordination. The AEs have developed sufficient competency to handle the marketing work independently. The entire contract related work is performed by the AEs, though, in cooperation with the assessee. Thus, it is quite natural that for being a sufficiently motivated work force, the AEs are compensated at return on sales and not merely on value added costs. Therefore, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to adopt the PLI of gross margin on sales. As regards consideration by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the outsourcing / sub–Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. contracting cost to assessee as a pass through cost, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was absolutely correct in observing that the decision of the Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude such costs while computing the margin of the AEs is incorrect. When similar cost incurred by the comparables were not excluded while computing their margin, a different treatment cannot be given to such costs in case of the AEs. Certainly, the aforesaid approach of the Transfer Pricing Officer has resulted in distorting the correct PLI of the AEs. In the aforesaid context, the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) are appreciable, wherein, he has observed that the PLI of the AEs and PLI of comparables have not been computed on similar lines by the Transfer Pricing Officer, hence, comparability condition fails. It is further relevant to observe, the alternative benchmarking furnished by the assessee before the Transfer Pricing Officer by considering the AEs in different geographic locations as tested parties with the comparables selected on the basis of the respective geographic locations furnished before the Transfer Pricing Officer were not properly considered. However, in course of appeal proceedings, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) examined them in detail and after a detailed analysis approved some comparables selected by the assessee and also added some new comparables. Whereas, the comparable selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer were not on the Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. basis of any detailed search process. At least, no such analysis is either forthcoming from the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer or could be brought to our notice by learned Departmental Representative. On the contrary, on a thorough and careful reading of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), we are of the view that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken pains to examine in detail the alternative benchmarking done by the assessee with foreign comparables and after detailed analysis has shortlisted the final comparables to be considered for comparability analysis. No convincing argument or evidence has been brought on record by the learned Departmental Representative to persuade us to disturb the finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on these issues. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue on the issues. Accordingly, grounds are dismissed.

21. In view of our decision on the grounds raised by the Revenue, grounds no.7 and 8, in assessee’s appeal have become academic, hence, do not require adjudication.

22. At this juncture, we must make it clear that our decision hereinabove on the aforesaid grounds would not apply to transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of AEs situated in USA and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Netherland, as such issues are covered under the MAP resolution, as discussed earlier.

23. In view of our decision in ground no.10 in assessee’s appeal, no separate adjudication of grounds no.11, 12 and 13, in Revenue’s appeal is required. Hence, they are dismissed.”

“A. In respect of performance guarantee, the rate to be applied is 0.88 % as against 1.39% in AY 09-10. The premium has changed to USD 1.1 million and the insurance cover to 125 million in this FY. Further according to assessee as against 48% on site revenue in AY 09-10, the figure is 31.72% in this FY making necessary modification. This claim may be verified by AO/TPO and same approach in calculation by CIT(A) in AY 09-10 may be adopted. B. In respect of Finance guarantee, the rate remains unaltered at 0.77% (0.75% +mark up of 0.02%) C. In respect of Lease guarantee, my predecessor CIT(A) has taken the same rate as applicable for performance guarantee. Therefore the rate is to be taken @ 0.88% as against 1.23% in AY 09-10. As the assessee is occupying 40% and the AE is occupying 60%, the guarantee charges should be restricted to 60% only. 21.3 The Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the figure in accordance with the above directions.”

“35. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials available on record. Similar issue arose before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10, wherein it is held:- “43. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Insofar as the contention of learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee that provision of guarantee is not an international transaction as per section 92B of the Act, we are unable to accept such contention. In our considered opinion, after introduction of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Explanation-(i)(c) to section 92B of the Act, with retrospective effect from 1st April 2002, provision of guarantee to AEs has to be considered as an international transaction. Different Benches of the Tribunal have also expressed similar view on the issue. Therefore, we hold that the provision of guarantee to the AEs is an international transaction. In fact, the aforesaid view has been expressed by the Co-ordinate Bench in WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, following the aforesaid decision of the Co- ordinate Bench and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Everest Canto Cylinders Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to charge guarantee commission @ 0.5% per annum both on performance / lease guarantee as well as financial guarantee.” Facts being identical, we follow the above order of the Co-ordinate Bench and direct the AO to charge guarantee commission @0.5% per annum both on performance / lease guarantee as well as financial guarantee. In this context , we direct the AO to examine the contentions of the assessee that (i)part of the activity with respective performance guarantee, was performed by the assessee itself, while the remaining services are rendered by the AE and thus, if the performance guarantee is treated a chargeable services, the charges should be levied only on the component of services performed by the AE (ii) part of the premises i.e. 40% during the year under consideration was occupied by the assessee and thus, if lease guarantee is treated as chargeable services, the charge should be levied only for the balance i.e. 60% during the year under consideration. We direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence on the above contentions before the AO.”

“37. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also carefully gone through the case law cited before us. Notably, right from the stage of transfer pricing proceeding itself the assessee has taken a stand that loans and advances to the AEs are in the nature of quasi equity, hence, cannot be treated as loan simpliciter. It is relevant to observe, the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of interest is in respect of loans advanced to four overseas AEs. From the details available on record, it is noticed that major portion of loans advanced to TCS Ibero America, is for acquisition of downstream subsidiary and about 20% of the advance was for working capital. Money advanced to TCS FNS Pty. Ltd., Australia, was purely for acquisition of downstream subsidiary. Similarly, advance to TCS Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd., is for acquisition of downstream subsidiary. Only the advance made to TCS Morocco is for working capital requirement. It is further noted, major part of advances made to TCS Ibero America, TCS FNS Pty. Ltd. and TCS Morocco have been converted to equity subsequently. It is also a fact on record that before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has filed a detailed written submission on 27th March 2014, elaborately discussing the nature of advance made to the AEs and the purpose for which such advances were made. It was submitted by the assessee that the advances made to the AEs were as a part of business strategy and not simply to help the AEs with capital infusion. The assessee has advanced detailed argument stating that advances made to the AEs is a shareholder activity and not advancement of loan. In this context, the assessee has referred to OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines as well as UK and Australian Regulations. It is evident from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, he sketchily Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. referred to some of the submissions made by the assessee, however, he has not at all dealt with them in an effective manner. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, has observed that the loans advanced were not merely for downstream acquisition but for a variety of purpose including working capital requirement and other business uses, however, he has not elaborated as to for what other purpose loans were advanced. Without properly dealing with the factual aspect of the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has jumped to the legal aspect and has held that the amount advanced by the assessee is in the nature of loan and has to be benchmarked as such. After considering the submissions of the parties and examining the material on record, we are convinced that various submissions made by the assessee before learned Commissioner (Appeals) have not at all been dealt with. The primary contention of the assessee that the advance made to the AEs is in the nature of quasi equity and falls within shareholder's activity has not been properly addressed by the Departmental Authorities keeping in view the ratio laid down in the relevant case laws. It also requires deliberation whether it can be considered as an international transaction under section 92B r/w Explanation-1(c). Since, the aforesaid legal and factual aspects have not been considered properly, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessing Officer must examine all relevant facts to find out the exact nature of the advances made to the AEs. He should also examine the applicability of the ratio laid down in the case of DLF Hotel Holdings Ltd. (supra) and any other case laws which may be cited before him. The assessee must be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes.”

“84. The TPO was of the view that the assessee has been recognized as one of the big 4 in the information technology for A.Y. 2013-14 and is a very powerful brand and the value of brand has been quantified at 8.2 billion USD as per the annual report. The assessee submitted before the TPO that the brand legally owned by the Tata Sons Limited and so the assessee has no right to charge for fees for the brand.

“9.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee had incurred an expenditure in respect of payment towards Tata brand equity and claimed the same as „business expenditure‟ u/s37(1) of the Act. The assessee had made payment towards subscription fee for carrying out normal business activities of the company. The assessee submitted that the Tata brand always belong to Tata Sons and accordingly, the assessee has made payment to Tata Sons after due deduction of tax at source u/s.194J of the Act. The assessee also submitted that this payment is required to be made annually by all the subscribee‟s to Tata Sons towards subscription on the basis of their profitability.

There is no question of capitalizing this expenditure as it is a recurring payment by the assessee. The ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of the ld. AO. 9.2. We find that this Tribunal in assessee‟s group concern‟s case of Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd., vs. ACIT in IT (TP)A No.7596/Mum/2012 for A.Y.2008-09 dated 12/06/2013 had addressed very same issue. The decision rendered thereon shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal except with variance in figures. The relevant operative portion of the Tribunal order dated 12/06/2013 referred to supra is reproduced hereunder:- 2. The issue raised in ground No. 1 relates to the disallowance of ₹ 32,42,666/- made by the A.O. on account of payment made by the assessee to M/s Tata Sons Ltd. on account of subscription towards “TATA” brand equity and business promotion scheme.

4. The A.O. did not find merit in the above submissions made by the assessee on this issue for the following reasons given in the assessment order:- “The assessee company was incorporated on 17.10.1995 with the name Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. Therefore, the assessee company had been using the name TATA since then. It is not a case where prior permission was required to use the “TATA” name at the time of incorporation. The aforesaid arrangement of payment of subscription towards brand equity was entered only on 04.06.2001 i.e. more than five years after the incorporation. By using TATA word in its name since then itself gives the assessee right to use TATA brand. Further, it is seen that the major holding (74%) of the assessee company is with Tata Industries Ltd. Tata Motors Ltd, and Tata Sons Ltd. All these three companies have been using the name TATA since long. As regards assessee’s submission that the similar claim had been allowed in past, it may be noted that this particular issue was never examined in past. Further, perpetuity of a mistake cannot be allowed to continue. Since, this issue had never been examined in past and had been allowed without any verification, with due respect to the ratio of the decision in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), it is submitted that the same is not applicable to the present case. The similar issue is involved in the case of Tata Chemical Ltd. a group company of the Tata Group wherein, DRP have confirmed the proposed addition on the ground of disallowance of brand equity subscription. For the reasons given above, the A.O. proposed disallowance of ₹ 32,42,666/- on account of subscription paid by the assessee to Tata Sons Ltd. in the draft assessment order against which objection was filed by the assessee before the DRP. The DRP found the objection of the assessee to be unsustainable keeping in view that a similar issue was being agitated by the Department at various appellate forums. Consequently, final disallowance of ₹ 32,42,666/- was made by the A.O. on this issue.

“a) To protect and promote the interests generally of the Subscriber both in India and abroad. To this end, the Subscriber hereby authorizes the Proprietor to act on its behalf in protecting and enforcing the collective image and goodwill of the Group and preventing any newly developed mark or symbol from being usurped and/or diluted in any way. b) To organize periodically as may be deemed necessary corporate identity and brand promotional activities and campaigns through various media including electronic /telecommunication/satellite communication media (e.g. TATA Website) etc. printing and publishing of promotional material and such other activities as in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Proprietor Company, will enhance the TATA Brand Equity and correspondingly benefit the business of the Subscriber. c) To co-ordinate major campaigns involving the promotion and development of the Business Name Marks and Marketing Indica. d) to engage the services of specialist agencies both National and International as the need may be to energise and enhance the Overall TATA Brand Equity which eventually could result in a greater market share for the products and services of the Subscriber and help in the preservation and vindication of the trust and confidence reposed by customers, business associates, stockholders and the society in general. e) To engage profession consultants for conducting industry/organizational studies/research for the formulation of Group business strategies and policies that would assist the subscribing companies to emerge as business leaders in the evolving markets. f) For the attainment of the overall objectives of the TATA Brand Equity & Business Promotion Scheme and interacting closely with the participating TATA Companies in a certainly coordinated manner, engage and set up a team of senior personnel and/or advisors/consultants and/or specialists firms as well as provide them with the necessary supporting staff and facilities to perform their functions. g) To take steps to make available a pool of sharable resources of the TATA Group including managerial talent trained in TATA values to the Subscriber. h) To provide necessary guidance to the Subscriber in order to ensure appraise the performance of the Subscriber in various areas of its activity and to guide and assist the Subscriber in the attainment of higher standards of quality of its products, services and management. i) To adopt the JRD Quality Value and/or other such process as a means of appraise the performance of the Subscriber in various areas of its activity and to guide and assist the Subscriber in the attainment of higher standards of quality of its products. Services and management. j) To provide such support and assistance to the Subscriber as the Board of Directors of the Proprietor Company may consider necessary in certain circumstances including securing the support of Group companies to the extent and in a manner permissible under the prevalent laws. k) to encourage support to the Subscriber’s business from Group companies subject to the availability of products and services of a desirable quality at competitive rates. l) to undertake activities which in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Proprietor Company are essential for the purpose of promoting, developing, maintaining, managing and legally protecting the Business Name, the Marks and Marketing Indica in India and abroad and thereby endeavor to promote the business of the Subscriber to achieve greater profitability and enhancement of stakeholder value. m) To undertake measures to preserve the stability of the management of the Subscriber in order to protect the larger interests of its stakeholders. n) To provide resources for availing services in the areas of 1. Financial and Strategic Management.

2. Legal and Economic matters.

3. Management Development and Human Resources.

4. Corporate Communications.

5. Community Services. o) For the purposes of promoting the business of the Subscriber to provide assistance in accessing the network of domestic and international business contacts and availing the services of the domestic and overseas offices of the Proprietor and the Group Companies. p) To institutionalise mechanisms to share and propagate best management practices amongst the Subscribing companies. q) To manage and supervise the implementation of the Scheme and ensure compliance with the terms of this Agreement and the Code”. The ld. counsel for the assessee has also invited our attention to the relevant portion of the agreement dtd 4th June, 2001 at page 218 containing subscription clause whereby the assessee was obliged to pay the subscription at the stipulated rate to Tata Sons Ltd. for the services rendered in connection with maintaining and promoting the entire brand and image of TATA group.

6. As further submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, M/s Rallis India Ltd., another company belonging to TATA group had also entered into a similar agreement with M/s Tata Sons and the subscription paid as per the said agreement towards TATA brand equity and business promotion scheme was disallowed by the A.O. The ld. CIT(A), however, allowed the same and the Tribunal vide its order dtd. 30-8-2011 passed in for ITA No.1769/Mum/2018 and other appeals M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., 28 A.Y. 2004-05 upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The copy of the said order is placed on record at page 1 to 21 of the compilation of the judgments filed by the ld. counsel for the assessee and a perusal of the same shows that a similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by agreeing with the view of the ld. CIT(A) that the payment in question not only permitted the use of TATA name but also gave an opportunity to the assessee to inform the business world that it was having the back up of excellence, with a code of conduct and a promise of quality. It was held that the fact that the TATA group was already having an infrastructure and brand equity was well established and by making such a contribution, the assessee company was benefited in its day-to-day business. The Tribunal also found that a similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee in case of Harrisons Malayalam reported in 19 SOT 363 wherein the payment made for acquiring non-exclusive licence to use the logo for the purpose of business was held to be allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act being the expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Tata Steel, another company belonging to TATA group, a similar subscription paid by the assessee company to Tata Sons Ltd. was proposed to be disallowed by the A.O. in the draft assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 and when the assessee objected to the said disallowance before the DRP by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rallis India Ltd. (supra), the DRP directed the A.O. to allow the said expenditure after verifying as to whether the department has accepted the said decision of the Tribunal. On verification, the A.O. found that no appeal was filed by the department against the order of the Tribunal passed in the case of Rallis India Ltd. giving relief to the assessee on the issue of brand equity subscription and accordingly he allowed similar subscription paid by Tata Steel Ltd. in the final assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144-C of the Act vide order dtd. 27-11-2010. It is thus clear that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rallis India Ltd. which has also been accepted by the department. Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal, we delete the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of subscription paid by the assessee to Tata Sons Ltd. towards brand equity and promotion scheme and allow ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal. 9.3. Respectfully following the same, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the said expenditure as a Revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the ground No.5 raised by the Revenue for the A.Y.2012-13 is dismissed.