STMICROELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of AO passed consequent to the order of DRP inter alia on the following grounds:-

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that ground Nos. 2 & 3 are squarely covered by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98)(Karn) in which it has been held that where certain expenses are not part of the export turnover, the same should be excluded from the total turnover. We, therefore, following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, decide this issue in favour of assessee and direct IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 5 of 37 the AO to recompute the deduction u/s. 10A of the Act in the light of the aforesaid judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra).

As far as ground No.4 is concerned, it should be examined in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act. Accordingly we restore it to the file of Assessing Officer.

With respect to ground Nos. 5 to 14, which relate to Transfer Pricing (TP) issues and calculation of the arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transaction between the assessee and its Associated Enterprise (AE), during the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that some comparables were taken by the TPO in the case of Hewlett Packard (India) and the Tribunal has examined the same comparables and have rejected 16 comparables and the AO was directed to recomputed the ALP after taking into account the remaining comparables. In support of his contentions, the ld. counsel for the assessee has filed copy of the order of Tribunal in the case of Hewlett Packard (India) Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in IT(TP)A No.1031/Bang/ 2011. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that the impugned issue may be decided in the light of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Hewlett Packard (India) Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon the order of the TPO.

Having carefully examined the order of lower authorities in the light of the rival submissions and the synopsis of the arguments and the chart detailing the profile and the reasons for rejection of the comparables, we find that the assessee company, Genesis Microchip (India) Pvt. Ltd. (now merged with ST Microelectronics (P) Ltd)., is engaged in providing software development services and coding of embedded software to its Associated Enterprise (AE), Genesis Microchip Inc. US. During the impugned financial year i.e., 2006-07, assessee has entered into following transactions with its AE:-

The operating profit to expenses of the assessee was also worked out as on 31.3.2007 which is as under:-

The TPO has made adjustment in both the segments, but the assessee is in appeal against the adjustment in software development services. Having noted that assessee was engaged in international IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 7 of 37 transactions with its AE, the matter was referred to the TPO and the TPO has taken the following 26 comparables:-

Against the order of TPO, the assessee moved DRP, but did not find favour and now the assessee is in appeal before us.

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that Hewlett Packard (India) Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. was also engaged in software segment and was also providing development services to its AE and the Tribunal had an occasion to examine all these comparables in the case of Hewlett Packard (India) Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) and in that case the TPO has taken the same 26 comparables and the Tribunal had rejected 16 comparables, out of 26 comparables on the ground that these comparables are functionally different and some of the comparables had abnormal margin fluctuation and the Tribunal finally directed the AO/TPO to take the following comparables for computing the ALP:-

Datamatics Ltd.

Geometric Software Ltd. (Seg.) 3. iGate Global Solutions Ltd. (Seg.) 4. LGS Global Ltd. (Lanco Global Solutions Ltd.) 5. Mediasoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 6. Mindtree Consulting Ltd. 7. Quintegra Solutions Ltd. 8. R S Software (India) Ltd. 9. Sasken Communications Ltd. (Seg.) 10. SIP Technologies & Exports Ltd. IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 9 of 37

Copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Hewlett Packard (India) Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) is placed on record and the relevant observations of the Tribunal in that case for rejection of these comparables are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:-

With regard to this company, the complaint of the assessee is that this company is not a pure software development service company. It is further submitted that in a Mumbai Tribunal Decision of Capgemini India (F) Ltd v Ad. CIT 12 Taxman.com 51, the DRP accepted the contention of the assessee that Accel Transmatic should be rejected as comparable. The relevant observations of DRP as extracted by the ITAT in its order are as follows: “In regard to Accel Transmatics Ltd. the assessee submitted the company profile and its annual report for financial year 2005-06 from which the DRP noted that the business activities of the company were as under.

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.

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.”

Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in similar set of facts, these companies are directed to be excluded from the list of comparables. ii) Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd. 39. As far as this company is concerned, the plea of the Assessee has been that this company is functionally different from the assessee. Based on the information available in the company’s website, which reveals that this company has developed a software product by name “DXchange”, it was submitted that this company would have revenue from software product sales apart from rendering of software services and therefore is functionally different from the assessee. It was further submitted that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal to the decision in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT – wherein the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contention that this company has revenue from software product and observed that in the absence of segmental details, Avani Cincom cannot be considered as comparable to the assessee who was rendering software development services only and it was held as follows:- “7.8 Avani Cincom Technologies Ltd. (‘Avani Cincom’): Here in this case also the segmental details of operating income of IT services and sale of software products have not been provided so as to see whether the profit ratio of this company can be taken into consideration for comparing the case that of assessee. In absence of any kind of details provided by the TPO, we are unable to persuade ourselves to include it as comparable party. Learned CIT DR has provided a copy of profit loss account which shows that mainly its earning is from software exports, however, the details of percentage of export of products or services have not been given. We, therefore, reject this company also from taking into consideration for comparability analysis.”

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. iii) Celestial Labs Ltd.

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.”

Further reference was also made to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Teva Pharma Private Ltd. v. Addl. CIT – (for AY 2007-08) in which the comparability of this company for clinical trial research segment. The relevant extract of discussion regarding this company is as follows: “The learned D.R. however drew our attention to page-389 of the paper book which is an extract from the Directors report which reads as follows: ‘The Company has developed a de novo drug design tool “CELSUITE” to drug discovery in, finding the lead molecules for drug discovery and protected the IPR by filing under the copy if sic (of) right/patent act. (Apprised and funded by Department of Science and Technology New Delhi) based on our insilico expertise (applying bio-informatics tools). The Company has developed a molecule to treat Leucoderma and multiple cancer and protected the IPR by filing the patent. The patent details have been discussed with Patent officials and the response is very favorable. The cloning and purification under wet lab procedures are under progress with our collaborative Institute, Department of Microbiology, Osmania University, Hyderabad. In the industrial biotechnology area, the company has signed the Technology transfer agreement with IMTECH CHANDIGARH (a very reputed CSIR organization) to manufacture and market initially two Enzymes, Alpha Amylase and Alkaline Protease in India and overseas. The company is planning to set up a biotechnology facility to manufacture industrial enzymes. This facility would also include the research laboratories for carrying out further R & D activities to develop new candidates’ drug molecules and license them to Interested Pharma and Bio Companies across the GLOBE. The proposed Facility will be set up in Genome Valley at Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh.’ IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 14 of 37 According to the learned D.R. celestial labs is also in the field of research in pharmaceutical products and should be considered as comparable. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Assessee, 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 bio-informatics 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.”

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 company has diverse business. It was submitted that, however, from the above extracts it is clear that this company is not into software development activities, accordingly, this company should be rejected as a comparable being functionally different.

From the material available on record, it transpires that the TPO has accepted that up to AY 06-07 this company was classified as a Research and Development company. According to the TPO in AY 07- 08 this company has been classified as software development service provider in the Capitaline/Prowess database as well as in the annual report of this company. The TPO has relied on the response from this company to a notice u/s.133(6) of the Act in which it has said that it is in the business of providing software development services. The Assessee in reply to the proposal of the AO to treat this as a comparable has pointed out that this company provides software products/services as well as bioinformatics services and that the segmental data for each activity is not available and therefore this company should not be treated as comparable. Besides the above, the Assessee has point out to several references in the annual report for 31.3.2007 highlighting the fact that this company was develops biotechnology products and IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 15 of 37 provides related software development services. The TPO called for segmental data at the entity level from this company. The TPO also called for description of software development process. In response to the request of the TPO this company in its reply dated 29.3.2010 has given details of employees working in software development but it is not clear as to whether any segmental data was given or not. Besides the above there is no other detail in the TPO’s order as to the nature of software development services performed by the Assessee. Celestial labs had come out with a public issue of shares and in that connection issued Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) in which the business of this company was explained as to clinical research. The TPO wanted to know as to whether the primary business of this company is software development services as indicated in the annual report for FY 06-07 or clinical research and manufacture of bio products and other products as stated in the DRHP. There is no reference to any reply by Celestial 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. iv) 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 the information received in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act, this company is engaged in software development services and satisfies all the filters. 14.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative contended that this company ought to be excluded from the list of comparables on the ground that it is functionally different to the assessee. It is submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that this company is engaged in ‘e-Business Consulting Services’, consisting of Web Strategy Services, IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 16 of 37 I T design services and in Technology Consulting Services including product development consulting services. These services, the learned Authorised Representative contends, are high end ITES normally categorised as knowledge process Outsourcing (‘KPO’) services. It is further submitted that this company has not provided segmental data in its Annual Report. The learned Authorised Representative submits that since the Annual Report of the company does not contain detailed descriptive information on the business of the company, the assessee places reliance on the details available on the company’s website which should be considered while evaluating the company’s functional profile. It is also submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that KPO services are not comparable to software development services and therefore companies rendering KPO services ought not to be considered as comparable to software development companies and relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Capital IQ Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. in dt.23.11.2012 and prayed that in view of the above reasons, this company i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd., ought to be omitted from the list of comparables. 14.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables by the TPO. 14.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is seen from the record that the TPO has included this company in the list of comparables only on the basis of the statement made by the company in its reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. It appears that the TPO has not examined the services rendered by the company to give a finding whether the services performed by this company are similar to the software 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 IQ 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.

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 assessee company. The said concern is engaged in two segments namely application software segment and Training. As per the TPO, the application software segment is functionally comparable to the assessee as the said concern is engaged in software services. The stand of the assessee is that a perusal of the Annual Report of the said concern for F.Y. 2006-07 reveals that the application software segment is engaged in the business of sale of software products and software services. The assessee pointed out this to the TPO in its written submissions, copy of which is placed in the Paper book at page 420.3 to 420.4. The assessee further pointed out that there was no bifurcation available between the business of sale of software products and the business of software services, and therefore, it was not appropriate to adopt the application software segment of the said concern for the purposes of comparability with the assessee’s IT- Services Segment. The TPO however, noticed that though the application software segment of the said concern may be engaged in selling of some of the software products which are developed by it, however, the said concern was not into trading of software products as there were no cost of purchases debited in the Profit & Loss Account. Though the TPO agreed that the quantum of revenue from sale of products was not available as per the financial statements of the said concern, but as the basic function of the said concern was software development, it was includible as it was functionally comparable to the assessee’s segment of IT-Services.

Before us, apart from reiterating the points raised before the TPO and the DRP, the Ld. Counsel submitted that in the immediately preceeding assessment year of 2006-07, the said concern was evaluated by the assessee and was found functionally incomparable. For the said purpose, our reference has been invited to pages 421 to 542 of the Paper book, which is the copy of the Transfer Pricing study undertaken by the assessee for the A.Y. 2006-07, and in particular, attention was invited to page 454 where the accept reject matrix undertaken by the assessee reflected KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg) as functionally incomparable. The Ld. Counsel pointed out that the aforesaid position has been accepted by the TPO in the earlier A.Y. 2006-07 and therefore, there was no justification for the TPO to consider the said concern as functionally comparable in the instant assessment year.

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 services. 20. With regard to the inclusion of Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., the assessee has raised similar arguments as in the case of KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg). We have perused the relevant para of the order of the TPO i.e., 6.3.21, in terms of which the said concern has been included as a comparable concern. The assessee pointed out that as in the case of KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg), in the instant case also for A.Y. 2006-07 the said concern was found functionally incomparable by the assessee in its Transfer pricing study and the said position was not disturbed by the TPO. The relevant portion of the Transfer pricing study, placed at page 432 of the Paper book has been pointed out in support. Considered in the aforesaid light, on the basis of the discussion in relation to KALS Information IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 19 of 37 Solutions Ltd. (Seg), in the instant case also we find that the said concern is liable to be excluded from the list of comparables. vi) 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 that turnover and brand aspects were not materially relevant in the software development segment. 12.2 Before us, the assessee contended that this company is not functionally comparable to the assessee and in this context has cited various portions of the Annual Report of this company to this effect which is as under :- (i) The company has an Intellectual Property (IP) Cell to guide its employees to leverage the power of IP for their growth. In 2008, this company generated over 102 invention disclosures and filed an aggregate 10 patents in India and the USA. Till date this company has filed an aggregate of 119 patent applications (pending) in India and USA out of which 2 have been granted in the US. (ii) This company has substantial revenues from software products and the break-up of the software product revenues is not available. (iii) This company has incurred huge research and development expenditure to the tune of approximately Rs.200 Crores. (iv) This company has a revenue sharing agreement towards acquisition of IPR in AUTOLAY, a commercial software product used in designing high performance structural systems. (v) The assessee also placed reliance on the following judicial decisions:- (a) ITAT, Delhi Bench decision in the case of Agnity India Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.3856/Del/2010) and (b) Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1054/Bang/2011)

The learned DR however objected to the exclusion of these two companies from the list of comparables. On a careful perusal of the material on record, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz Research & Development India Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) has taken a note of dissimilarities between the assessee therein and Lucid Software Ltd. As observed therein Lucid Software Ltd. company is also involved in the development of software as compared to the assessee, which is only into software services. Similarly, as regards Ishir Infotech Ltd., the Tribunal has considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Co. Pvt. Ltd to hold that Ishir Infotech is also out-sourcing its work and, therefore, has not satisfied the 25% employee cost filter and thus has to be excluded from the list of comparables. As the facts of the case before us are similar, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we hold that these two companies are also to be excluded.

Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid companies from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP. ix) KALS Information Systems Ltd.

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, No 1386/PN/1O wherein KALS as comparable was rejected for AY 2006-07 on account of it being functionally different from software companies. The relevant extract are as follows: “16. Another issue relating to selection of comparables by the TPO is regarding inclusion of Kals Information System Ltd. The assessee has objected to its inclusion on the basis that IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 22 of 37 functionally the company is not comparable. With reference to pages 185-186 of the Paper Book, it is explained that the said company is engaged in development of software products and services and is not comparable to software development services provided by the assessee. The appellant has submitted an extract on pages 185-186 of the Paper Book from the website of the company to establish that it is engaged in providing of I T enabled services and that the said company is into development of software products, etc. All these aspects have not been factually rebutted and, in our view, the said concern is liable to be excluded from the final set of comparables, and thus on this aspect, assessee succeeds.” Based on all the above, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that KALS Information Systems Limited should be rejected as a comparable.

We have given a careful consideration to the submission made on behalf of the Assessee. We find that the TPO has drawn conclusions on the basis of information obtained by issue of notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. This information which was not available in public domain could not have been used by the TPO, when the same is contrary to the annual report of this company as highlighted by the Assessee in its letter dated 21.6.2010 to the TPO. We also find that in the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the Assessee, the Mumbai Bench of ITAT has held that this company was developing software products and not purely or mainly software development service provider. We therefore accept the plea of the Assessee that this company is not comparable. x) Persistent Systems Ltd. 17.1.1 This company was selected by the TPO as a comparable. The assessee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable for the reasons that this company being engaged in software product designing and analytic services, it is functionally different and further that segmental results are not available. The TPO rejected the assessee's objections on the ground that as per the Annual Report for the company for Financial Year 2007-08, it is mainly a software development company and as per the details furnished in reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act, software development constitutes 96% of its revenues. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer included this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., in the list of comparables as it qualified the functionality criterion.

Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid companies from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP. xiii) Thirdware Solutions Ltd. (Segment) 15.1 This company was proposed for inclusion in the list of comparables by the TPO. Before the TPO, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables on the ground that its turnover was in excess of Rs.500 Crores. Before us, the assessee has objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable for the reason that apart from software development services, it is in the IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 28 of 37 business of product development and trading in software and giving licenses for use of software. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that :- (i) This company is engaged in product development and earns revenue from sale of licences and subscription. It has been pointed out from the Annual Report that the company has not provided any separate segmental profit and loss account for software development services and product development services. (ii) In the case of E-Gain communications Pvt. Ltd. (2008-TII-04- ITAT-PUNE-TP), the Tribunal has directed that this company be omitted as a comparable for software service providers, as its income includes income from sale of licences which has increased the margins of the company. The learned A.R. prayed that in the light of the above facts and in view of the afore cited decision of the Tribunal (supra), this company ought to be omitted from the list of comparables. 15.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the action of the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables. 15.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is seen from the material on record that the company is engaged in product development and earns revenue from sale of licenses and subscription. However, the segmental profit and loss accounts for software development services and product development are not given separately. Further, as pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of E-Gain Communications Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has directed that since the income of this company includes income from sale of licenses, it ought to be rejected as a comparable for software development services. In the case on hand, the assessee is rendering software development services. In this factual view of the matter and following the afore cited decision of the Pune Tribunal (supra), we direct that this company be omitted from the list of comparables for the period under consideration in the case on hand. xiv) Wipro Limited 13.1 This company was selected as a comparable by the TPO. Before the TPO, the assessee had objected to the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables on several grounds like functional IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 29 of 37 dis-similarity, brand value, size, etc. The TPO, however, brushed aside the objections of the assessee and included this company in the set of comparables. 13.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee contended that this company i.e. Wipro Ltd., is not functionally comparable to the assessee for the following reasons:- (i) This company owns significant intangibles in the nature of customer related intangibles and technology related intangibles and quoted extracts from the Annual Report of this company in the submissions made. (ii) The TPO had adopted the consolidated financial statements for comparability purposes and for computing the margins, which contradicts the TPO’s own filter of rejecting companies with consolidated financial statements. 13.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the action of the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables. 13.4.1 We have heard both parties and carefully 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 service provider who does not own any such intangible and hence does not have an additional advantage in the market. As the assessee in the case on hand does not own any intangibles, following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e. 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that this company cannot be IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 30 of 37 considered as a comparable to the assessee. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to omit this company from the set of comparable companies in the case on hand for the year under consideration.

No doubt if we follow the above decision M/s. Accel Transmatic Ltd (seg), Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd, Celestial Labs Ltd, E-Zest Solutions Ltd,, Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd, Infosys Technologies Ltd, Ishir Infotech Ltd, Kals Information Systems Ltd (seg), Lucid Software Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, Quintegra Solutions Ltd, Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg), Thirdware Solutions Ltd (seg) and Wipro Ltd (seg) have to be excluded from the list of comparables. However out of these, M/s. Accel Transmatics Ltd. (seg), Quintegra Solutions Ltd and Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg) were a part of assessee’s own TP study. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Quark Systems India (P) Ltd (supra), upheld the Special Bench decision in DCIT v. Quark Systems (P) Ltd [(2010) 42 DTR 414], noting that latter had only remitted the issue of comparability of comparables considered in assessee’s own TP study, back to TPO. Hence we are of the opinion that the issue of comparability of these three companies have to go back to AO / TPO for consideration afresh. However M/s. Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd, Celestial Lab Ltd, E- Zest Solutions Ltd, Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd, Infosys Technologies Ltd, Ishir Infotech Ltd, Kals Information Systems Ltd (seg), Lucid Software Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, Thirdware Solution Ltd (seg) and Wipro Ltd (seg) have to be excluded by virtue of coordinate bench decision in the case of NXP Semiconductors India Ltd (supra). Comparability of M/s. Accel Transmatics Ltd (seg), M/s. Quintegra Solutions Ltd and M/s. Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg) is remitted back to the AO / TPO for consideration afresh as per law. Ordered accordingly.

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 held as under :

Rule 10D(3) specifies the information and documents that are to be maintained by a person who is entering into international transactions. These are official publications, published accounts or those which are in public domain except for agreements and contracts to which assessee is privy. Once the annual report of a company is for a year different from the financial year ending 31stMarch, then without doubt, it will cease to be a good comparable, unless the information received in pursuance to a notice u/s.133(6) of the Act from such company, is reconciled with the figures available in such annual report.

In the case of Flextronics Software Systems Ltd(seg), no doubt the annual report was for the year ending 31.03.2007. However it was only for a nine months period. No reconciliation was attempted by the lower authorities between the figures given in such annual report with the figures which were made available by the said company to the TPO pursuant to notice issued to them u/s.133(6) of the Act. No doubt at page 123 of TP order, TPO has stated that the software development service revenues were more than 75% based on the following figures : ................... But how this segmentation was done by the TPO and the reconciliation of the said segmentation with the annual report of the assessee was never attempted or done. In such a situation we are of the opinion that Flextronics Software Solutions Ltd (seg) could not be considered as a proper comparable. We direct exclusion thereof.

Vis-a-vis R Systems International Ltd (seg), Mumbai bench of this Tribunal had held as under at para 7.1 and 7.2 in the case of Hapag Lloyd Global Services Pvt. Ltd (supra) : 7.1 This case was included by the assessee in its transfer pricing study. The TPO excluded this case because of different financial year ending in that case. The learned CIT(A) ordered for the inclusion of this case by recording that even though this company was following different financial year ending but the following different financial years could not be a reason to exclude this case. 7.2 The learned Departmental Representative contended that unless the financial year end of a comparable case matches with that of the assessee, it cannot be considered as comparable because the figures of different financial year endings are distorted. He relied on an order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sandstone Capital Advisors Private Limited v. ACJT in 2012. Vide its order dated 06.02.2013, the Tribunal, after considering the prescription of Rule IOB(4) and an another case of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Honeywell Automation India Ltd., has held that it is mandatory for the purposes of comparing the data of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction that the same must relate to the financial year ending similar to that of the assessee. The Id. DR contended that since the case of CMC Limited has a different financial year ending vis-a-vis that of the assessee, the same ought to have been excluded. No contrary precedent was brought to our notice by the learned AR. In fact, the argument advanced by the Id. DR in this regard was not seriously challenged by the Id. AR. Respectfully following the precedent, we hold that this case should be excluded from the list of comparables.

No doubt the above decision was for A. Y. 2005-06, but the annual report of the said company placed by the assessee at paperbook page No.599 show that its final accounts were being prepared on a calendar year basis even after that. Profit and Loss account is for calendar year ending 31.12.2008 for the same reason as mentioned by the coordinate bench of Mumbai in the case of Hapag Lloyd Global Services P. Ltd (supra), we are of the opinion that R Systems International Ltd (seg) could not be considered as a proper comparable. We direct exclusion thereof.

As for Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd (seg), this Tribunal in the case of Motorola Solutions (India) P Ltd (supra), held as under at para 12 its order : 12. Saskin Communication Technologies Ltd.: 109. Ld TPO noticed that the company was rejected in the TP document on the ground that the company fails its filter of business review and R&D to sales was more than 3%. However, no reasons were given for the business review. 109.1 Ld. TPO pointed out that R&D to sales being more than 3% is not acceptable for which detailed discussion has already been made earlier. He further noticed that the company has software services segment and segmental results are available for software services. He further pointed out that on the basis of information obtained u/s 133(6), the company qualifies onsite revenue filter (onsite revenues were to the extent 27.27% of its export revenues). After considering the assessee’s reply, ld. TPO included this company in the list of comparables. Ld. counsel pointed out that this company has incurred significant expenditure on research and development activity the same being 6.07% of sales. He further submitted that the company had significant intangible inasmuch as it develops siskin branded products. The company owns IPR Further it was pointed out before TPO that during the year the company had acquired Botnia Hightech F. and its two subsidiaries and thus, it had under gone significant restructuring. However, ld. TPO ignored these facts He relied on the following decisions: • IQ Information System (I) Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1961/Hyd./2012 (para no. 11 & 23, page 25); • Amerson Process Management India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 8118/Mum./2010 (para 16 page 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 IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 36 of 37 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 the AO / TPO has to be given a chance for verification, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Pun jab & Haryana High Court in the case of Quark Systems India P. Ltd (supra). Accordingly we remit the issue of comparability of Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd back to the AO / TPO for consideration afresh as per law. Ordered accordingly.

Once the above companies are excluded what would be directly left in the list of comparables and Datamatics Financial Services Ltd (seg), Geometric Software Ltd (seg), iGate Global Solutions Ltd, LGS Global Ltd, Media Soft Solutions P. Ltd, Mindtree Ltd, R S Software (India) Ltd, SIP Technologies & Exports Ltd and Mega Soft Ltd. Last of these, viz Mega Soft Ltd, has to be considered after proper segmentation, mentioned by us at para 25 above. AO / TPO will also have to decide on the comparability of M/s. Accel Transmatics Ltd (seg), Quintegra Solution Ltd, Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd (seg) and Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg), considering the judicial precedence related to the comparability of these companies. We direct the AO / TPO to rework the average PLI of the comparables, as per the directions in the preceding paras and decide on the question of ALP adjustment accordingly.”

Since this Tribunal has taken a view in similar set of facts and has excluded 16 comparables out of 26 taken by the TPO by passing a reasoned order in the case of Hewlett Packard (India) Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. IT(TP)A No.949/Bang/2011 Page 37 of 37 (supra), we find no justification to take a contrary view in this case as the profile of the assessee is similar to Hewlett Packard (India) Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. We therefore following the same, direct the TPO/AO to take the 10 comparables for computing the ALP of the international transactions.

The other grounds are consequential in nature and need no independent adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.