ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

The appeal filed by the assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 and cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee relating to assessment

First, we shall take up the appeal relating to assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- All the grounds of appeals are independent and without prejudice to each other 1. The learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.2,26,62,278/-; on the payment made for acquiring "Right to Render BPO Services" to Cummins Inc., USA though considered as a depreciable asset by the appellant. 2. The learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in holding that the Right to Render BPO Services" is not an asset which diminishes in value over a period of time. 3. The learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in not allowing entire payment of Rs 20,18,75,000 (5 Million USD) for acquisition of Right to Render BPO Services" as deductible expenditure u/s 37(1). 4. The learned AO, TPO and DRP erred in law and on facts in determining, u/s 92CA, the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transaction of Software Services by the appellant to its Associated Enterprise, at Rs.36,60,61,947 instead of Rs.30,37,24,020; thereby making an addition of Rs.6,23,37,926. The learned AO, TPO and DRP ought to have appreciated that such high pitched addition is totally illogical considering the fact that the AE company has only retained Rs.2.74 Crores from the end customers invoicing. 5. The learned AO, TPO & DRP erred in law and on facts in determining u/s 92CA, the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transaction of software services by adopting a mark-up of 31.93% over costs instead of the appellant's earned mark up of 9.46% on cost. 6. The learned AO erred in law and on facts in not granting appropriate working capital adjustment to the appellant. 7. The AO, TPO & DRP erred in law and on facts in not granting benefit of proviso to section 92C(2) of the ITA, 1961 though specifically requested during the course of hearing. 8. The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, alter, amend, or withdraw all or any of the Ground of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.

Further, the assessee has also raised an additional ground of appeal which reads as under:-

Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished the return of income declaring total income (loss) of ₹ 2,35,92,780/-. The assessee company was engaged in the business of providing Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) to its associated enterprises. The assessee also provided technology based support services like Helpdesk, network operations centre, security operations centre, etc. The assessee was STPI unit and was registered with Software Technology Parks of India. During the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 10A of the Act. The assessee had also claimed depreciation on intangible assets i.e. Right to Render Business process outsourcing service. The opening WDV of intangible assets was ₹ 20,67,31,603/- and the assessee had claimed depreciation of ₹ 2,29,70,178/-. The closing WDV of said asset was ₹ 18,37,61,425/-. The assessee explained that it had entered into a tripartite agreement with Cummins Inc and KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd. for obtaining Right to Render Business process outsourcing services to Cummins group entities globally. This agreement was effective from 11.04.2007 and was for a period of 60 months. As per terms of agreement, the assessee company made payment of USD 5,00,000 i.e. ₹ 2067.32 lakhs on 27.09.2007 as consideration to secure the Right to Render such business process outsourcing services. As per the assessee, the payment met the recognition criteria of intangible assets under AS-26 of ICAI and hence, during the year the addition to the intangible assets of ₹ 2067.32 lakhs was made. The payment was amortized over the remaining period of agreement i.e. over a period of 54 months and therefore, the charge to the Profit and Loss Account during the instant assessment year was ₹ 229.71 lakhs. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to prove how the said expenditure was intangible asset and how it attracted section 32(1)(ii) of the Act as it was neither know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, license, franchise nor any other business or

The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) admitted that payment of sum against business rights was not disputed by the Assessing Officer. It was also not disputed that the said payment was for acquiring right to carry on business by the assessee since only after the said payment, the assessee was authorized to carry on BPO activity for Cummins and its associated entities. The DRP thus, held that payment was capital in nature as it was incurred before the said business activities commenced. The claim of depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act was thus, denied. The Assessing Officer thus, passed final assessment order and made an addition of ₹ 2,26,62,278/-.

The assessee by way of grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 has raised the issue of claim of depreciation on the aforesaid payment made for acquiring right to render BPO services to Cummins in USA. Vide ground of appeal No.3, the assessee has raised alternate plea that the entire payment of ₹ 20.18 crores for acquisition of right to render BPO services was deductible expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act.

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer had denied the claim as it does not fit into definition of intangible assets. However, the Assessing Officer further says that the payment made was similar to goodwill i.e. any other asset of similar nature. He further pointed out that when the Assessing Officer passed the order, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 24 taxmann.com 222 (SC) was not available, hence the claim was not allowed in assessment year 2008-09. He further pointed out that in assessment year 2009-10 before the Assessing Officer, the assessee relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra), but the Assessing Officer denied depreciation, against which the assessee is in appeal. However, in assessment year 2010-11, the DRP allowed the claim of assessee and the Revenue is not in appeal against the order of DRP. Reference was made to para 7.6 of the said order. Our attention was drawn to Master Service Agreement, which is placed at page 1 onwards of Paper Book-I. He further referred to the order of Assessing Officer with special reference to paras 3.8 and 3.9.1 at pages 12 and 13 of assessment order and pointed out that the Assessing Officer has categorically said that the payment at best was goodwill. He further stressed that the agreement with Cummins was only for a period of 60 months and it was not an agreement in perpetuity. Where the Assessing Officer clearly says that at best it was goodwill, since it does not fit into the family of intangible assets and the DRP says that in order to keep the issue alive, in para 6.3.2, he denied the claim of depreciation. He pointed out that the issue being settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), hence the said claim of depreciation may be allowed to the assessee. He fairly pointed out that ground of appeal No.3 was on without prejudice basis to allow the entire claim of deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee here also referred

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue referring to the order of Assessing Officer pointed out that he denied depreciation on intangible assets as no classification was available. He referred to page 14 of Paper Book- II in para 1.5 and pointed out that there was no clarity of what was the nature of asset. He also referred to AS-26 of ICAI and pointed out that intangible assets should be identifiable.

In rejoinder, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee itself had classified it as intangible asset as under the said commercial rights, business was given to the assessee. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (supra) and Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in Skyline Caterers (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2008) 116 ITD 348 (Mum-Trib).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The first issue which is raised in the present appeal is against claim of depreciation on payment made for acquiring right to render BPO services to Cummins Inc, USA. The assessee during the year under consideration had entered into tripartite

The issue which arises in the present appeal is whether the payment so made by the assessee is in the category of intangible assets which is eligible for claim of depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had denied the said claim of assessee on the ground that the said payment did not fall in the category of know-how, patents, copyrights, trademark, license, franchise, etc. The Assessing Officer however, vide para 3.9.1 though admits that at best the payment could be called as goodwill, which had been acquired by the assessee from Cummins through the said agreement. The terms of agreement and what the assessee has acquired have been elaborately explained by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. It may be pointed out that at the

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that in assessment year 2008-09, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not available. However, the same was available in assessment year 2009-10 and it was relied upon by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the DRP, but the plea of assessee was rejected. However, in assessment year 2010-11, similar plea was raised before the Assessing Officer and thereafter, before the DRP. Vide order dated 17.11.2014, the DRP held the assessee eligible to claim depreciation on the said consideration paid being intangible asset, covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra). The relevant findings of DRP in paras 7.6 to 7.8 are clear from the copy of DRP order, placed on record by the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer in the year under consideration had also held the payment made by the assessee was at best being payment for goodwill and where similar claim has been allowed in the hands of assessee in assessment year 2010-11, we hold the assessee to be entitled to claim depreciation on the right to render BPO services being goodwill in the hands of assessee. Thus, we reverse the

The additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee of granting deduction under section 10A of the Act on the increased income due to disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets amounting to ₹ 2.26 crores is though covered in favour of assessee by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (supra), however, since we have allowed the claim of assessee, the issue becomes academic in nature and the same is thus, dismissed.

Now, coming to the second issue raised vide grounds of appeal No.4 to 7 i.e. against transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of assessee at ₹ 6,23,37,926/-.

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that it was the second year of operation but the first year of adjustment. He referred to the order of TPO in para 9 and pointed out that the assessee was making exports to associated enterprises and overheads in respect of exports were being looked after by associated enterprises. He gave an example that where ‘A’ was billing AE ₹ 100/-, then AE in case of offshore work was billing ₹ 106/- and in case of onshore work was billing ₹ 112/-. Referring to the order of TPO, it was

Another concern which the assessee wants to be excluded is Genesys International Corporation Ltd., which was also high end KPO service provider. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Vistcon Engineering Center (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 70 taxmann.com 248 (Pune – Trib.).

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that two other concerns the assessee wants to be excluded are Triton Corporation and Maple eSolutions Ltd. In this regard, he placed reliance on the ratio laid down by Pune Bench of Tribunal in Oceans Connect (I) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 368 (Pune – Trib.) and the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Tech Book Electronics Services (P.) Ltd. (2016) 67 taxmann.com 169 (Delhi – Trib.). In this regard, he pointed out that both the concerns Triton Corporation and Maple eSolutions Ltd. were found to be not comparable to a concern engaged in ITES services by the Tribunal in the above mentioned decisions.

Another issue raised by the assessee was against rejection of concerns by the TPO on the ground that they were loss making. In this regard, he stressed that where the concerns were not persistent loss making, then the same could not be excluded as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. He concluded by saying that in case above concerns are excluded / included, then other issues raised on TP adjustment would become academic.

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue in reply, referred to the order of TPO in paras 8 and 9 and pointed out that the concern

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder pointed out that Triton Corporation was fraudulent company and the financials of said concern could not be picked up for comparison.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee was offering skills and rule based services i.e. transaction processing, finance & accounting, HR processing, etc; technology based services e.g. Technical help desk solutions and knowledge based solutions such as Sarbanes Oxley solutions, data analytics, etc. The assessee was offering enterprise and extensive solutions in the core business area of knowledge based, skill based and technology based services. The TPO notes that the assessee was providing

The mean margin of said concerns worked out to 24.28% as compared to re-working of margins of assessee at 15.51% and worked out the adjustment of ₹ 4,11,11,716/-. The Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order proposed the said adjustment to the arm's length price of international transactions. The assessee filed objections to the DRP. The DRP directed that the action of TPO / Assessing Officer was appropriate except to consider segmental accounts of Maple eSolutions Ltd. and Triton Corporation Ltd. The TPO thus, modified the margins of Maple eSolutions Ltd. and Triton Corporation Ltd. after the directions of DRP and the TP adjustment was re-calculated at ₹ 6,23,37,926/- as against earlier adjustment of ₹ 4,11,11,716/-. An opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee with regard to proposed enhancement in the TP adjustments. The assessee objected to the same on the ground that the DRP had not considered submissions of assessee that both the concerns Maple eSolutions Ltd. and Triton Corporation Ltd. were bad comparable. Rejecting the same, the Assessing Officer in the final assessment order made transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 6,23,37,926/-, against which the assessee is in appeal.

The first issue which is raised is in respect of selection / rejection of comparables. First, we may take up comparables for which directions of DRP were given i.e. Triton Corporation Ltd. and Maple eSolutions Ltd. The assessee had claimed that both the concerns were fraudulent companies and though it had selected said concerns as comparable during last year but since the new financial details were available, the same were not to be applied. In this regard, the Assessing Officer had applied the margins of said concerns, whereas the DRP directed that only the margins of segmentals should be applied. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard has pointed out that exclusion of Triton Corporation Ltd. and Maple eSolutions Ltd. has been decided by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in Oceans Connect (I) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) vide its order dated 29.04.2015, where the assessment year involved was assessment year 2005-06. He further referred to the order of Delhi Bench of Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Tech Book Electronics Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), wherein vide order dated 15.02.2016 for assessment year 2008-09, the said concern was rejected being fraud company. Reliance was placed on various other decisions of different Tribunals wherein similarly it has been held that the said concern was fraud company and hence, the margins of said concern were not to be applied. The concern which was held to be fraud concern by series of decisions cannot be included in the final set of comparables. Accordingly, we hold that Triton Corporation is to be excluded. Similarly, Maple eSolutions Ltd. has been held to be a company under severe indictment. In view of low credibility of comparable company, the said concern is to be excluded from final set of comparables. In ACIT Vs. Tech Book Electronics Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), another issue which has been held against both the concerns is the non-availability of segmental details. However, we find that in the present appeal, the Assessing Officer / TPO have applied segmental data after the directions of DRP and hence, this point is

Next, we take up the plea of assessee in respect of Coral Hubs Ltd. The said concern has been held to be engaged in e-publishing business and hence functionally not comparable to a concern providing ITES services. The said ratio has been laid down by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd. Vs. DCIT (IT) (supra) relating to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and also in BNY Mellon International Operations (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) in assessment year 2008-09. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the concern which is engaged in e-publishing is not comparable to the present assessee before us, which is engaged in providing ITES services to its associated enterprises. Hence, the same is to be excluded from final set of comparables.

The next concern which the assessee has claimed to be not comparable is Crossdomain Solutions Ltd., which as per the assessee is engaged in providing high end KPO services. The plea of learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue before us was that the assessee is also engaged in providing knowledge based services and hence, functionally comparable. We find that the issue of a concern providing ITES services being dissimilar to a concern providing KPO services is covered by the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Maximize Learning Private Limited Vs. ACIT in ITA No.267/PN/2014, relating to assessment year 2009-10, order dated 29.04.2015, wherein it was held as under:-

The said issue has also been decided in favour of assessee in series of decisions. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. is to be excluded from final set of comparables.

The last concern which the assessee wants to be excluded is Genesys International Corporation Ltd. on the ground that it is engaged in high end KPO services. The said concern was engaged in providing geographical information services comprising Photogrammertry, Remote Sensing, Cartography, Data conversion and related computer based services. As noted by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in Vistcon Engineering Center (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), since the concern is engaged in activities which are not functionally comparable to the assessee, the same cannot be included in the final set of comparables. We

Now, coming to the next set of comparables which have been rejected by the TPO on the ground that they are loss making concerns. The plea of assessee before us is that since the said concerns were not persistent loss making, hence the same cannot be excluded.

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue in this regard pointed out that the said aspect i.e. whether the said concerns were persistent loss making or not, had not been verified by the TPO. In case the concerns were persistent loss making, then the same are to be excluded from final set of comparables. However, if the concerns are not persistent loss making and the losses have arisen during the year under consideration only, then the said concerns if functionally comparable, can be selected in final set of comparables. However, this needs verification at the end of TPO. Accordingly, we remit this issue back to the file of TPO for verification. The assessee shall furnish relevant data before the TPO / Assessing Officer, who shall decide the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and in accordance with law. The TPO/Assessing Officer is thus, directed to re-compute the adjustment on account of arm's length price in this regard, if any.

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that in case these concerns are rejected, then other TP issues raised would become academic. Hence, we do not adjudicate the same.

Before parting, we may also refer to the observations of TPO that the transactions with associated enterprises were in fact controlled. The assessee on the other hand, claims that associated enterprises were incurring losses i.e. overheads were being looked after by them. Hence, the total value of arm's length price should be taken at Nil as the assessee had charged maximum possible. In case it charges more price from the associated enterprises, then loss of associated enterprises would go up. We are not adjudicating this issue, in view of the plea of assessee that in case the above mentioned concerns were excluded, then no further TP adjustment has to be made in the hands of assessee. Accordingly, we hold this aspect of the issue as academic and hence, do not adjudicate the same. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, partly allowed.

Now, coming to the cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue in assessment year 2009-10. The assessee in ITA No.525/PUN/2014 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Corporate Income Tax related issues 1.

The Revenue in ITA No.459/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2009- 10 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude Crossdomain Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as comparable company based on the definition provided in Safe Harbor Rules not appreciating the fact that the Safe Harbor Rules have been introduced vide Notification No.S.O.2810(E) dated 18/9/2013 and could not be applied retrospectively. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing to exclude the above company as comparable even though no information was available in the annual report indicating it as KPO service provider. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the Assessing Officer to include Sparash BPO Ltd. as comparable company since it is into ITeS ignoring the fact that Sparsh BPO is 100% domestic service provider as held by Hon-ble ITAT Pune's decision in the case of Brinton Carpets in ITA No.1296/PN/10 for A.Y.2006-07.

The first issue raised by the assessee is same i.e. depreciation on the amount paid to Cummins Inc for acquiring right to render BPO services. The issue stands covered by our decision in the paras hereinabove and we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of assessee on the said payment made by the assessee.

The second issue which has been raised in the present appeal is against TP adjustment made in the hands of assessee amounting to ₹ 3,26,42,615/-. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that it was aggrieved by inclusion of two concerns i.e. Coral Hubs Ltd. and Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. In respect of Coral Hubs Ltd., it was pointed out that the said concern was engaged in e-publishing. Referring to the directions of DRP in para 2.2.4.5 at page 12 of the order, it was pointed out that the DRP had accepted Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. to be engaged in providing high end KPO services and had directed its exclusion but the said concern was retained by the TPO and hence, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee also pointed out that the Revenue is in appeal for exclusion of Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. and inclusion of Sparash BPO Ltd.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present appeal is against transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of assessee, wherein the TPO on analysis of functional comparability of various concerns had drawn up final set of comparables, which read as under:-

The assessee is aggrieved by inclusion of Coral Hubs Ltd. We have already decided the said concern to be not functionally comparable to the

Now, coming to the next concern i.e. Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. The DRP had noted the said concern to be providing high end KPO services and had directed its exclusion; but the Assessing Officer in final assessment order has retained the said concern. However, the Assessing Officer has included the margins of said concern in the mean margins of comparables selected.

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of DRP in directing its exclusion. We have already decided this issue in the paras hereinabove while deciding the appeal for assessment year 2008-09 and had directed its exclusion. Accordingly, we uphold the order of DRP in this regard and dismiss the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue.

The assessee is in appeal as the said concern was retained by the Assessing Officer in final assessment order. We find no merit in the order of Assessing Officer in this regard, especially after the directions of DRP in para 2.2.4.5 at page 12 of its order. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the said concern Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. from final set of comparables. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee only stressed about the non inclusion of comparables and not addressed any other ground of TP adjustment. Accordingly, we do not adjudicate the same.

Now, coming to the appeal of Revenue i.e. ground of appeal No.3. The TPO had not included Sparash BPO Ltd. in final set of comparables.

The case of assessee before the DRP was that the said concern was to be included in final set of comparables. The DRP vide its order in para 2.2.1.4 at page 6 had held the said concern to be engaged in ITES services and merely because it had small number of clients, same was not relevant filter to be applied for selection or rejection of the company. The DRP thus, directed to include the said concern in the list of comparables. The Assessing Officer in the final assessment order has included the margins of said concern.

The Revenue is in appeal against the directions of DRP in this regard.

While selecting a concern to be comparable, the first step is to be seen is whether it is functionally comparable and the next step is the turnover filter as applied in the TP study report by the TPO. Whether the concern had small number of clients or large number of clients was not relevant but we find that this aspect of said concern being functionally comparable and its turnover, has not addressed either by the TPO / DRP. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer / TPO to verify the claim of assessee as to its functional comparability and whether the turnover of said concern falls within the turnover filter finally applied in the case of assessee and decide whether it is to be included in the final set of comparables. Accordingly, we hold so. The Assessing Officer is thus, directed to re-compute the mean margins of finally selected comparables and determine the adjustment, if any, on account of transfer pricing provisions in the hands of

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed.