Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO
PER SHRI A.K GARODIA, AM
This is assessee’s appeal directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A). The
assessment order was passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C of the IT Act,
1961 for Ay: 2007-08, as per the directions of DRP.
The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are as under;
“Transfer Pricing The Honourable DRP and the learned AO grossly erred in upholding the income adjustment proposed by the learned TPO in arriving at the Arm’s Length Price [ALP] of the international
2 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
transactions entered into by the Appellant in respect to provision of software services.
The Appellant is in appeal before the Honourable bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Honourable “ITAT”) under section 253 (1) (d) against the order passed by the learned AO in pursuance of the directions of the Honourable DRP.
A. Software services- Transfer Pricing:
The grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. 1.The learned DRP and the learned TPO grossly erred in law and facts of the case in determining the ALP of the international transaction of the Appellant on account of provision of software services and proposing a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.86,490,148/-.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DRP and the learned AO erred in upholding the rejection of Transfer Pricing (‘TP’) documentation by the learned TPO without appreciating the contentions, arguments, and evidentiary data put forward by the Appellant during the course of the proceedings before them, and in doing so have grossly erred:
3 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
2.1. in upholding the rejection of comparability analysis carried in the TP documentation and conducting a fresh comparability analysis for determining the arm’s length price by the learned TPO. 2.2 in adopting the arm’s length mark up to be 22.88% [working capital adjusted margin] in respect of international transactions of the Appellant. 2.3 in upholding the actions of the learned TPO in completely relying on the unaudited data requisitioned and consequently obtained by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), which in many instances are inconsistent with the data disclosed in audited reports. 2.4 in considering 25 percent as the threshold limit for the Related Party Transactions filter as this number is an arbitrary number that has been adopted without any judicial precedence or reasonable basis. 2.5 in upholding the actions of the learned TPO in rejecting the upper limit for sales turnover filter proposed by the assessee without providing any empirical analysis. In doing so, the learned TPO erred in not appreciating that the software industry is clearly demarcated based on size. 2.6 in not maintaining consistency in applying the filters of rejecting companies with software development revenue less than 75% of the total revenue and companies with different year end for preparing financial statements.
4 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
2.7 in upholding the actions of the learned TPO in applying the onsite filter for selection of software comparables with the use of the data obtained under section 133(6) of the Act. In doing so the learned TPO erred in rejecting Akshay Software Technologies Limited and VJIL Consulting Limited. 2.8 in upholding the actions of the learned TPO in accepting companies like Infosys Limited and Wipro Limited as comparable companies even though the sales of Infosys and Wipro are driven based on brand developed by them, and doing so the learned DRP and learned AO have incorrectly applied the rationale provided in the jurisdictional Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruling in Agnity India Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (reference: ITA No. 3856(Del)/2010). 2.9 in upholding the actions of the learned TPO in accepting Tata Elxsi Limited as a comparable company eventhough the company in its reply to the learned TPO under section 133(6) had mentioned that the company provides product design services, which is functionally not comparable to the assessee’s business. 2.10 in upholding the actions of the learned TPO in accepting companies engaged in the provision of software product development like Megasoft Limited, Flextronics Software Systems Limited, KALS Information Systems Limited, Avani Cimcon Technologies Limited, Lucid Software Limited, Ishir Infotech Limited, E-zest Solutions Limited, Persistent Systems Limited and R Systems International Limited, Accel Transmatics
5 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
Limited which are functionally not comparable to the assessee’s business. 2.11 in upholding the actions of the learned TPO in accepting Celestial Labs Limited as a comparable company eventhough it is a contract research company which also engaged in bio- informatics and hence functionally dissimilar to the assessee. 2.12 in upholding the actions of the learned TPO in accepting companies like Megasoft Limited, Flextronics Software Systems Limited and Helios & Matheson Information Technology Limited which have abnormal/fluctuating profit margins. In doing so the learned DRP and learned AO have disregarded the jurisdictional ITAT ruling in the case of SAP LABS India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (reference ITANo. 398/Bang/2008) and E-Gain Communication Private Limited (reference: ITA No. 1685/PN/07 - Pune). 2.13 in upholding the actions of the learned TPO in rejecting Thinksoft Global Services Limited by stating that it is not functionally comparable. 2.14 in upholding the actions of the learned TPO in concluding that Maars Software International Limited is not functionally comparable without even considering the fact that the IT consultancy services forms an integral part of the software development services and cannot be classified as functionally different from that of the assessee. 3. That the learned TPO and the learned DRP erred in disregarding the use of multiple year data and have considered
6 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
only current year data based on search conducted at the time of the assessment, ignoring non-availability of current year data in the public domain at the time of preparing the documentation.
That the learned TPO, the learned AO and the learned DRP erred in disregarding the fact that the assessee did not have any intention to shift profits being eligible for deduction under section 10A. Therefore the adjustment proposed is not called for and is hence misplaced.
5.The learned AO and the learned DRP erred in upholding the actions of the learned TPO in concluding that the assessee is exposed to single customer risk without evaluating the business arrangement of the assessee.
That the learned TPO, learned AO and the Honourable DRP erred in not allowing the benefits of market risk adjustment and working capital adjustment on actual/ correct basis to the Appellant.
That the learned TPO, learned AO and the learned DRP erred in not allowing the benefit of range of +/- 5% as provided in proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act to the Appellant, while determining the arm’s length price.
The Appellant craves to leave/ to add to / to alter/ to amend/ to rescind/ to modify the grounds herein above or
7 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
produce further documents, facts and evidence before or at the time of hearing this appeal.
8 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
Non-Transfer Pricing Adjustments 9. Computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act A. Reduction of telecommunication charges from the export turnover � The learned AO erred in reducing the telecommunication charges, amounting to Rs. 36,436,996/-, from the export turnover while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. � The learned AO erred in disregarding the submission made by the Appellant that the telecommunication expenses should not be reduced from the export turnover of the Company since the company raised invoices towards exports of software and no amount was separately recovered from the customer towards any expenses attributable to the delivery of software. B. Reduction of travelling expenses incurred in foreign currency from the export turnover � The learned AO erred in reducing travelling expenses incurred in foreign currency amounting to Rs. 22,729,507/- from the export turnover for the purposes of computing deduction u/s 10 A. � The learned AO erred in disregarding the submission made by the Appellant that no part of the expenses incurred in foreign currency was incurred towards providing technical services outside India and hence, the same should not be reduced from the export turnover of the Company.
9 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
C. No corresponding reduction of expenses from the total turnover � Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned AO erred in reducing sums of Rs. 36,436,996/- towards telecommunication charges and Rs. 22,729,507/- towards expenses incurred in foreign currency only from export turnover without reducing the same from total turnover while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. � The learned AO has erred in not considering the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court Karnataka in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (ITA No. 70 of 2009), dated 30th August, 2011, wherein it has been held that if the telecommunication, freight and insurance expenses are reduced from the export turnover then the same would also have to be reduced from the total turnover in order to compute the deduction under section10A. � The learned AO also erred in not relying on the decision of the Special Bench of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Sak Soft Limited v. ITO (ITA No. 691 & 1953/Mds/2007) wherein it has been held that if the telecommunication, freight and insurance expenses are reduced from the export turnover then the same would also have to be reduced from the total turnover in order to compute the deduction under section 10A. � Further, the appellant has received a favourable decision from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with regard to the above issue for AY 2005-06.
10 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
Levy of interest � The learned AO is not justified in levying interest amounting to Rs. 17,377,910/- under section 234B of the Act. Levy of interest under section 234B is consequential in nature. � The learned AO is not justified in levying interest amounting to Rs. 8,064/- under section 234D of the Act. Levy of interest under section 234D is consequential in nature. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend all or any of the afore-stated grounds of appeal.
The assessee has also raised additional grounds which are as under; “Ground no.2.15 Thirdware Solutions Ltd., (Thirdware) should be rejected as a comparable The appellant submits that held. TPO has erred in including Thirdware as a functionally company comparable to the appellant, while doing the comparability analysis”.
It was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that in
respect of TP issues, he has submitted a chart and a copy of the Tribunal
order rendered in the case of Hewlett- Packard (India) Globalsoft P.
Ltd,(M/s HPGS) in IT(TP).A No.1031/Bang/2011. He further submitted
that as per this chart, the TPO has selected 26 comparables and the
assessee is seeking exclusion of 16 comparables out of these 26
11 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
comparables. He also submitted that the request for exclusion is on this
basis that these companies are functionally dissimilar and as per this
Tribunal order rendered in the case of M/s HPGS Vs DCIT (Supra), the
entire issue is covered in favour of the assessee because in this Tribunal
order also, all these comparables were considered by the Tribunal and it
was held that these comparables are not good comparables. He also
submitted that on pages -13 to 39 of the Tribunal order, the discussion
and decision about all the comparables is available.
Regarding the non TP issues, he submitted that the only issue is
regarding computation of tax allowable u/s 10A of the IT Act, 1961 and
this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of M/s Tata Elxsi
Ltd., as reported in 349 ITYR 98. As against this, ld. DR of the revenue
supported the orders of the authorities below.
A specific query was raised by the Bench whether there is any
difference in facts in the present case and in the case of M/s HPGS
(Supra) and in reply, the ld. DR of the revenue could not point out any
difference in facts.
We have considered the rival submissions.
12 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
Regarding non-TP issues in respect of computation of deduction
allowable to the assessee u/s 10A of the Act, we find that this issue is
covered in favour of the assessee by this judgment of the Hon’ble
Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd.(Supra.).
In this case, it was held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court that total
turnover is sum total of export turnover and domestic turnover and
therefore, if any amount is reduced from the export turnover, the total
turnover also will be automatically reduced by the same amount.
Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee by
respectfully following this judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court.
Regarding the TP issues, we find that out of 26 comparables
selected by the TPO, the assessee is requesting for exclusion of 16
comparables and out of that, request for exclusion of 15 comparables is
on this basis that these companies are functionally dissimilar and for
exclusion of one i.e. M/s R. Systems International Ltd(Seg.), the request is
on this basis that this company is having different financial year ending.
The request of the assessee for exclusion of 16 comparables is covered in
favour of assessee by the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of M/s
HPGS Vs DCIT (Supra) and page no.13 -39 of this Tribunal order are
13 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
relevant for taking decision about exclusion of these 16 comparables.
Hence, for the sake of ready reference, we re-produce the contents of
page-13-39 of this Tribunal order as under;
“13. On the arithmetic mean PLI of 25.14%, TPO recommended negative working capital adjustment of 1.88% which resulted in adjusted arithmetic mean PLI of 23.26%. Thereafter he computed the arms length price of international transactions in the software segment as under :
Thus TPO recommended an adjustment of Rs.1,51,26,13,104/-. When a proposal on the above lines was made by the AO. Assessee chose to move the DRP. 14. Before the DRP, assessee argued for exclusion of various comparables for various reasons like functional dissimilarity, extra ordinary events in the comparable companies, fluctuating margins, employee cost filter, etc., However, the DRP did not accept any of these contentions and affirmed the addition proposed by the AO / TPO.
14 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
Accordingly, assessment was completed making an addition of Rs.1,51,26,13,104/- in the software development services segment. 15. Now before us, Ld. AR submitted that out of the 26 comparables considered by the AO / TPO, assessee had no grievance with regard to 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 and SIP Technologies & Exports Ltd, totaling to eight companies. As for the balance 18 comparables, Ld. AR submitted that except Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg), R. Systems International (seg) and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd, all others were considered by this Tribunal in the case of NXP Semi Conductors India P. Ltd v. ACIT [IT(TP)A 1174/Bang/2011, dt.14.11.2014]. As per the Ld. AR, the same set of 26 comparables were taken by the TPO in the said case also for similar software development services segment. It was also for the very same assessment year. Hence according to him the decision of the coordinate bench in the said case could be taken as a good precedence for exclusion of 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, Megasoft Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, Quintegra Solutions Ltd, Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg), Thirdware Solutions Ltd (seg) and Wipro Ltd (seg). Copy of the order of Tribunal in the case of NXP Semi Conductors India P. Ltd (supra) was placed on record.
15 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
Ld. AR also submitted that though Mega Soft Ltd was considered a good comparable in the case of NXP Semi Conductors India P. Ltd (supra), coordinate bench had directed reworking its segmental results. However, Ld. AR pointed out that the annual report of the said company was prepared on calendar year basis and that too after an amalgamation which happened during the relevant previous year. Thus according to him, Mega Soft Ltd was to be excluded. 17. For seeking exclusion of Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg) and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd (seg), Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Motorala Solutions (India) P Ltd v. ACIT [ITA.5637/Del/2011, dt.14.08.2014]. Ld. AR submitted that the said decision was for the very same assessment year and for the very same software development segment. Further according to him, while selecting Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg), TPO had relied on information received from the said company based on a summons issued u/s.133(6) of the Act. According to him, the information provided were contradictory to the results as per the annual report of the said company. Relying on the annual report of the said company placed at paper book page 124, Vol-II, Ld. AR submitted that the audited accounts of Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg) was for nine months period, ending on 31.03.2007. According to him when there were differences between the audited accounts given in annual report which were available in public domain and replies given to notice u/s.133(6), the former alone could be given credence. According to him Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg)
16 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
also had considerable product development activities. It had not segmented its software development service and products and without such segmentation according to him, it would be inappropriate to consider Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg) as a proper comparable. 18. Vis-a-vis R Systems International Ltd (seg), reliance was placed on the decision of Mumbai bench in the case of ACIT v. Hapag Llyod Global Services P. Ltd [ITA.8499/Mum/2010, dt.28.02.2013]. According to him the said company was also following calendar year as its financial year and hence could not be considered as a proper comparable. Reliance was placed on the copy of annual report of the said company placed at page 599. 19. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that in so far as Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg) was concerned, its product revenue prima facie was very minimal. Though segmental result might not be there, as per the Ld. DR, TPO had obtained the required information, on 133(6) notice issued by him and this was reproduced by the TPO at page 123 of his order. Services income came to Rs.7368 millions whereas the product revenues were only Rs.896 millions. Thus according to him the argument of assessee that segmental results were unavailable for the said company was incorrect. Further according to him, once information received on issue of notice u/s.133(6) was put to the assessee and assessee was given a chance to answer the queries raised, it could not say that only the annual reports and audited accounts should be considered for the comparability analysis.
17 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
Vis-a-vis Mega Soft Ltd, Ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal decision relied on by the assessee itself had recommended the inclusion of the said company as a good comparable, after segmenting its result. 21. As for R Systems International Ltd (seg), Ld. DR submitted that the decision of Mumbai bench in the case of ACIT v. Hapag Llyod Global Services P. Ltd [ITA.8499/Mum/2010, dt.28.02.2013] (supra) relied on by the assessee was for F. Y. 2005- 06. 22. Continuing his arguments, Ld. DR submitted that assessee was seeking exclusion of four of the concerns considered by it as proper comparables and therefore comparability of these had to be looked into by the AO / TPO for proper analysis. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Quark Systems P. Ltd [(2011) 62 DTR 0182]. 23. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. In so far as 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) are concerned, the issue of comparability of these companies had come up before this Tribunal in the case of NXP Semiconductors India P. Ltd (supra). Analysis done in the said decision was also for software development services segment and the TPO in the said case
18 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
had also selected the very same set of 26 companies. Said decision being for the very same assessment year 2007-08, we are of the opinion that it can be taken as a good precedence for deciding the issue of comparability raised by the assessee herein, in so far as these companies are concerned. This Tribunal had observed as under : i) Accel Transmatic Ltd. 48. 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.
(i) Transmatic system - design, development and manufacture of multi function kiosks Queue management system, ticket vending system
19 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
(ii) Ushus Technologies - offshore development centre for embedded software, net work system, imaging technologies, outsourced product development
(iii) Accel IT Academy (the net stop for engineers)- training services in hardware and networking, enterprise system management, embedded system, VLSI designs, CAD/CAM/BPO
(iv) Accel Animation Studies software services for 2D/3D animation, special effect, erection, game asset development.
4.3 On careful perusal of the business activities of Accel Transmatic Ltd. DRP agreed with the assessee that the company was functionally different from the assessee company as it was engaged in the services in the form of ACCEL IT and ACCEL animation services for 2D and 3D animation and therefore assessee’s claim that this company was functionally different was accepted. DRP therefore directed the Assessing Officer to exclude ACCEL Transmatic Ltd. from the final list of comparables for the purpose of determining TNMM margin.”
20 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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. 50. 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.” 20. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in similar set of facts, these companies are directed to be excluded from the list of comparables.”
Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd. ii)
As far as this company is concerned, the plea of the Assessee has been that this company is
21 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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 – ITA No.7821/Mum/2011 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
22 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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.”
It was also highlighted that the margin of this company at 52.59% which represents abnormal circumstances and profits. The following figures were placed before us:-
Particulars FYs 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09
Operating Revenue 21761611 35477523 29342809 28039851 Operating Expns. 16417661 23249646 23359186 31108949 Operating Profit 5343950 12227877 5983623 (3069098) - 9.87% Operating Margin 32.55% 52.59% 25.62%
It was submitted that this company has made unusually high profit during the financial year 06-07. The operating revenues increased 63.03% which indicates that it was an extraordinary year for this company. Even the growth of software industry for the previous year as per NASSCOM was 32%. The growth rate of this company was double the industry average.
23 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
In view of the above, it was argued that this company ought to have been rejected as a comparable. 41. 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. 42. 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:- i. 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.”
ii. 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
24 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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.”
An amount of Rs. 11,692,020/- has been debited to the Profit and Loss Account as “Deferred Revenue Expenditure” (page 30 of PB-II). This amounts to nearly 8.28 percent of the sales of this company.
It was therefore submitted that the acceptance of this company as a comparable for the reason that it is into pure software development activities and is not engaged in R&D activities is bad in law. 43. 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 – ITA No.6623/Mum/2011 (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:
25 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
‘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
26 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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.’
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
27 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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. 45.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
28 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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 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
29 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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
30 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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, 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
31 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
bench in the case of Capital IQ Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. in ITA No.1961(Hyd)/2011 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 I-Q Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. Supra) that KPO services are not comparable to software development services and are therefore not comparable. Following the
32 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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.
v) Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd :
The next point made out by the assessee is with regard to the inclusion of items at (9) and (11) namely Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., and KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg). The primary plea raised by the assessee to assail the inclusion of the aforesaid two companies from the list of comparables is to be effect that they are functionally incomparable and therefore, are liable to be excluded. In sum and substance, the plea set up by the assessee is that both the aforesaid concerns are engaged in development and sale of software products which is functionally different from the services undertaken by the assessee in its IT-services segment.
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
33 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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
34 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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 preceding 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
35 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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.
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
36 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
discussion in relation to KALS Information 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.
37 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
(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)
12.3 Per contra, opposing the contentions of the assessee, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that comparability cannot be decided merely on the basis of scale of operations and the operating margins of this company have not been extraordinary. In view of this, the learned Departmental Representative supported the decision of the TPO to include this company in the list of comparable companies.
38 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
12.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidence to establish that this company is functionally dis-similar and different from the assessee and hence is not comparable and the finding rendered in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for Assessment Year 2007-08 is applicable to this year also. The argument put forth by assessee's is that Infosys Technologies Ltd is not functionally comparable since it owns significant intangible and has huge revenues from software products. It is also seen that the breakup of revenue from software services and software products is not available. In this view of the matter, we hold that this company ought to be omitted from the set of comparable companies. It is ordered accordingly.
vii) & viii) M/S.Ishir Infotech Ltd. And Lucid Software Ltd : 20. As far as comparable companies listed at Sl.No.11 & 14 of the final list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO viz., M/S.Ishir Infotech Ltd. And Lucid Software Ltd., is concerned, this Tribunal in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT IT (TP) No.1086/Bang/2011 for AY 07-08 held that the aforesaid companies are not comparable companies in the case of software development services provider. The
39 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
nature of services rendered by the Assessee in this appeal and the Assessee in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra) are one and the same. This fact would be clear from the fact that the very same 26 companies were chosen as comparable in the case of the Assessee as well as in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra). The following were the relevant observations in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra): 22. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that these two companies are also to be excluded from the list of comparables on the basis of the finding of this Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz Research & Development India Pvt. Ltd. dt 22.2.2013, wherein at pages 17 and 22 of its order the distinctions as to why these companies should be excluded are brought out. He submitted that the facts of the case before us are similar and, therefore, the said decision is applicable to the assessee's case also.
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
40 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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. 21. 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. 46. 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 repot, the salary cost debited under the software development expenditure was Q 45,93,351. The same
41 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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, ITA No. ITA 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 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
42 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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. 47. 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
43 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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.
17.1.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable submitting that this company is functionally different and also that there are several other factors on which this company cannot be taken as a comparable. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that :
(i) This company is engaged in software designing services and analytic services and therefore it is not purely a software development service provider as is the assessee in the case on hand.
(ii) Page 60 of the Annual Report of the company for F.Y. 2007-08 indicates that this company, is predominantly engaged in ‘Outsourced Software Product Development Services’ for independent software vendors and enterprises.
44 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
(iii) Website extracts indicate that this company is in the business of product design services.
(iv) The ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Telecordia Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) while discussing the comparability of another company, namely Lucid Software Ltd. had rendered a finding that in the absence of segmental information, a company be taken into account for comparability analysis. This principle is squarely applicable to the company presently under consideration, which is into product development and product design services and for which the segmental data is not available.
The learned Authorised Representative prays that in view of the above, this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd. be omitted from the list of comparables.
17.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative support the action of the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables.
17.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is seen from the details on record that this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., is engaged in product development and product design services while the assessee is a software development services provider. We find that, as submitted by the assessee, the segmental details are not given separately. Therefore, following the principle enunciated in the decision
45 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Telecordia Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that in the absence of segmental details / information a company cannot be taken into account for comparability analysis, we hold that this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd. ought to be omitted from the set of comparables for the year under consideration. It is ordered accordingly.
xi) Quintegra Solutions Ltd.
18.1 This case was selected by the TPO as a comparable. Before the TPO, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company in the set of comparables on the ground that this company is functionally different and also that there were peculiar economic circumstances in the form of acquisitions made during the year. The TPO rejected the assessee's objections holding that this company qualifies all the filters applied by the TPO. On the issue of acquisitions, the TPO rejected the assessee's objections observing that the assessee has not adduced any evidence as to how this event had an any influence on the pricing or the margin earned.
18.1.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company for the reason that it is functionally different and also that there are other factors for which this company cannot be considered as a comparable. It was submitted that,
46 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
(i) Quintegra solutions Ltd., the company under consideration, is engaged in product engineering services and not in purely software development services. The Annual Report of this company also states that it is engaged in preparatory software products and is therefore not similar to the assessee in the case on hand.
(ii) In its Annual Report, the services rendered by the company are described as under :
“ Leveraging its proven global model, Quintegra provides a full range of custom IT solutions (such as development, testing, maintenance, SAP, product engineering and infrastructure management services), proprietary software products and consultancy services in IT on various platforms and technologies.”
(iii) This company is also engaged in research and development activities which resulted in the creation of Intellectual Proprietary Rights (IPRs) as can be evidenced from the statements made in the Annual Report of the company for the period under consideration, which is as under :
“ Quintegra has taken various measures to preserve its intellectual property. Accordingly, some of the products developed by the company …………… have been covered by the patent rights. The company has also applied for trade mark registration for one of its products, viz. Investor
47 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
Protection Index Fund (IPIF). These measures will help the company enhance its products value and also mitigate risks.”
(iv) The TPO has applied the filter of excluding companies having peculiar economic circumstances. Quintegra fails the TPO’s own filter since there have been acquisitions in this case, as is evidenced from the company’s Annual Report for F.Y. 2007-08, the period under consideration.
The learned Authorised Representative prays that in view of the submissions made above, it is clear that inter alia, this company i.e. Quintegra Solutions Ltd. being functionally different and possessing its own intangibles / IPRs, it cannot be considered as a comparable to the assessee in the case on hand and therefore ought to be excluded from the list of comparables for the period under consideration.
18.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the action of the TPO in including this company in the set of comparables to the assessee for the period under consideration.
18.3.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is seen from the details brought on record that this company i.e.Quintegra Solutions Ltd. is engaged in product
48 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
engineering services and is not purely a software development service provider as is the assessee in the case on hand. It is also seen that this company is also engaged in proprietary software products and has substantial R&D activity which has resulted in creation of its IPRs. Having applied for trade mark registration of its products, it evidences the fact that this company owns intangible assets. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in theca’s of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.227/Bang/2010 dt.9.11.2012) has held that if a company possesses or owns intangibles or IPRs, then it cannot be considered as a comparable company to one that does not own intangibles and requires to be omitted from the list of comparables, as in the case on hand.
18.3.2 We also find from the Annual Report of Quintegra Solutions Ltd. that there have been acquisitions made by it in the period under consideration. It is settled principle that where extraordinary events have taken place, which has an effect on the performance of the company, then that company shall be removed from the list of comparables.
18.3.3 Respectfully following the decision of the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we direct that this company i.e. Quintegra Solutions Ltd. be excluded from the list of comparables in the case on hand since it is engaged in
49 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
proprietary software products and owns its own intangibles unlike the assessee in the case on hand who is a software service provider.”
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.
xii) Tata Elxsi Ltd. 14.1 This company was a comparable selected by the TPO. Before the TPO, the assessee had objected to the inclusion of this company in the set of comparables on several counts like, functional dis-similarity, significant R&D activity, brand value, size, etc. The TPO, however, rejected the contention put forth by the assessee and included this company in the set of comparables.
14.2 Before us, it was reiterated that this company is not functionally comparable to the assessee as it performs a variety of functions under the software development and services segment namely (a) Product design services (b) Innovation design engineering and (c) visual computing labs. In the submissions made the assessee had quoted relevant portions from the Annual Report of the company
50 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
to this effect. In view of this, the learned Authorised Representative pleaded that this company be excluded from the list of comparables.
14.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the stand o the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables.
14.4.1 We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. From the details on record, we find that this company is predominantly engaged in product designing services and not purely software development services. The details in the Annual Report show that the segment “software development services” relates to design services and are not similar to software development services performed by the assessee.
14.4.2 The Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Telecordia Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. V ACIT (ITA No.7821/Mum/2011) has held that Tata Elxsi Ltd. is not a software development service provider and therefore it is not functionally comparable. In this context the relevant portion of this order is extracted and reproduced below :- “ …. Tata Elxsi is engaged in development of niche product and development services which is
51 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
entirely different from the assessee company. We agree with the contention of the learned Authorised Representative that the nature of product developed and services provided by this company are different from the assessee as have been narrated in para 6.6 above. Even the segmental details for revenue sales have not been provided by the TPO so as to consider it as a comparable party for comparing the profit ratio from product and services. Thus, on these facts, we are unable to treat this company as fit for comparability analysis for determining the arm’s length price for the assessee, hence, should be excluded from the list of comparable portion.”
As can be seen from the extracts of the Annual Report of this company produced before us, the facts pertaining to Tata Elxsi have not changed from Assessment Year 2007-08 to Assessment Year 2008-09. We, therefore, hold that this company is not to be considered for inclusion in the set of comparables in the case on hand. It is ordered accordingly.” 25. 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)
52 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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 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 licenses 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 licenses which has increased the margins of the company.
53 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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
54 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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 or several grounds like functional 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 assessee contended that this company is functionally not comparable to the assessee for several reasons, which are as under : (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.
55 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
13.3. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the action of the TPO in including this company in the set 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.
56 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
(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 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
57 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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.
Vis-a-vis Megasoft Ltd, we find that coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the very case of NXP Semi conductors India Ltd (supra) relying on its own earlier decision in Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA No.1064/Bang/2011 for AY 07- 08 order dated 23.11.2012] held it to be a good comparable, but had directed segmentation of its results. This Tribunal had directed that only the Blue Ally segment of the said company could be considered for comparison. Relevant findings of the Tribunal as it appears in the decision of NXP Semiconductors India Ltd (supra) is reproduced hereunder:
Megasoft Ltd. :
58 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
This company was chosen as a comparable by the TPO. The objection of the assessee is that there are two segments in this company viz., (i) software development segment, and (ii) software product segment. The Assessee is a pure software services provider and not a software product developer. According to the Assessee there is no break up of revenue between software products and software services business on a standalone basis of this comparable. The TPO relied on information which was given by this company in which this company had explained that it has two divisions viz., BLUEALLY DIVISION and XIUS-BCGI DIVISION. Xius- BCGI Division does the business of product software. This company develops packaged products for the wireless and convergent telecom industry. These products are sold as packaged products to customers. While implementing these standardized products, customers may request the company to customize products or reconfigure products to fit into their business environment. Thereupon the company takes up the job of customizing the packaged software. The company also explained that 30 to 40% of the product software would constitute packaged product and around 50% to 60% would constitute customized capabilities and expenses related to travelling, boarding and lodging expense. Based on the above reply, the TPO proceeded to hold that the comparable company was mainly into
59 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
customization of software products developed (which was akin to product software) internally and that the portion of the revenue from development of software sold and used for customization was less than 25% of the overall revenues. The TPO therefore held that less than 25% of the revenues of the comparable are from software products and therefore the comparable satisfied TPO’s filter of more than 75% of revenues from software development services. The basis on which the TPO arrived at the PLI of 60.23% is given at page-115 and 116 of the order of the TPO. It is clear from the perusal of the same that the TPO has proceeded to determine the PLI at the entity level and not on the basis of segmental data.
In the order of the TPO, operating margin was computed for this company at 60.23%. It is the complaint of the assessee that the operating margins have been computed at entity level combining software services and software product segments. It was submitted that the product segment of Megasoft is substantially different from its software service segment. The product segment has employee cost of 27.65% whereas the software service segment has employee cost of 50%. Similarly, the profit margin on cost in product segment is 117.95% and in case of
60 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
software service segment it is 23.11%. Both the segments are substantially different and therefore comparison at entity level is without basis and would vitiate the comparability (submissions on page 381 to 383 of the PB-I). It was further submitted that Megasoft Limited has provided segmental break-up between the software services segment and software product segment (page 68 of PB-II), which was also adopted by the TPO in his show cause notice (Page 84 of PB-I). The segmental results i.e., results pertaining to software services segment of this company was: Segmental Operating Revenues Rs.63,71,32,544 Segmental Operating Expenses Rs.51,75,13,211 Operating Profit Rs.11,96,19,333 OP/TC (PLI) 23.11%
It was reiterated that in the given circumstances only PLI of software service segment viz., 23.11% ought to have been selected for comparison. 27. It was further submitted that the learned TPO in case of other comparable, similarly placed, had adopted the margins of only the software service segment for comparability purposes. Consistent with such stand, it was submitted that the margins of the
61 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
software segment only should be adopted in the case of Megasoft also, in contrast to the entity level margins. 28. Computation of the net margin for Mega Soft Ltd. Is therefore remitted to the file of the TPO to compute the correct margin by following the direction of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd.” 23. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to compute the correct margin of Mega Soft Ltd., as directed by the Tribunal in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly we hold that Megasoft Ltd can be considered as a good comparable after segmentation as directed in the above order is done. 26. 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 : “97.2 For a company to be included in the list of comparables, it is necessary that credible information is available about the company. Unless this basic requirement is fulfilled, the company cannot be taken as a comparable. It is true that ld. TPO is entitled to obtain information us/ 133(6), the object of which is primarily only to supplement
62 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
the information already available on record, but not, as rightly submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee, to replace the information. If there is a complete contradiction between the information obtained u/s 133(6) and annual report then the said information cannot be substituted for the information contained in annual report. We, therefore, are in ITA No. 5637/D/2011 149 agreement with ld. counsel for the assessee that this company cannot be included as a comparable in the set of comparables selected by ld. TPO on account of clear contradiction between contents of annual report and information obtained u/s 133(6).
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 31st March, 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. 28. 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
63 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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. 29. 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
64 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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 ITA No.6315/Mum! 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.
65 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
No doubt the above decision was for A. Y. 2005-06, but the annual report of the said company placed by the assessee at paper book 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. 31. 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
66 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
(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 adjustment was
67 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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. 32. Once the above companies are excluded what would be directly left in the list of comparables and Datamatics Financial Services Ltd (seg), Geometric Software
68 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
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. 33. Now we take up ITES segment. For justifying the pricing of its international transactions under the ITES segment, assessee had adopted the TNMM itself and selected 13 comparable companies which gave an average profit margin of 12.06%. Since this was within + / - 5% of its own profit margin of 9.53%, as per the assessee there was no requirement for any adjustment in the pricing of these transactions. As per the assessee ITES segment comprised of Technical Call Centre services. TPO though he accepted he the assessee to be a call center service provider, rejected seven companies out of the 13 selected by the assessee. Thereafter he made his own study under prowess and capitaline data base and zeroed in on 27 comparables, including the seven in
69 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
the assessee’s own list. 27 comparables considered by the TPO and their average PLI is given hereunder :
On the arithmetic mean PLI of 30.21%, AO made a negative working capital adjustment of 1.60% and arrived at adjusted mean PLI of 28.61%. Shortfall in the value of the international transactions was worked out by the AO as under :
70 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
Operating Cost Rs.258,89,21,986/- Arm’s Length Margin 28.61% of the Operating Cost Arm’s Length Price (ALP) @ 128.61% Rs.332,96,12,566/- Price shown by the assessee Rs.279,24,76,527/- Shortfall being adjustment u/s.92CA Rs.53,71,36,039/-
TPO recommended an adjustment of Rs.5,37,36,019/- in the ITES segment. When a proposal on the above lines was made assessee chose to move the DRP. However the DRP rejected its contentions and confirmed the recommendations of the TPO. Assessment was completed making an addition of Rs.52,71,36,039/- in the ITES segment. 36. Now before us, Ld. AR submitted that out of the 27 comparable companies considered by TPO, Accentia Technologies Ltd, Asit C Mehta Financial Services Ltd, Informed Technologies India Ltd, Spanco Ltd (seg) and Vishal Information Technologies Ltd, failed the employee cost filter and had to be excluded. Reliance was placed on the following decisions of the Tribunal :
i) First Advantage Offshore Services P. Ltd v. DCIT [IT(TP)A No.1086/Bang/2011, dt.30.04.2013].
ii) Stream International Services P. Ltd v. ACIT [ITA.8290/Mum/2011, dt.10.10.2014]
Ld. AR submitted that in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services P. Ltd (supra), this Tribunal
71 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
had clearly held that 25% employee cost filter had to be applied for ITES segment.
Vis-a-vis, Bodhtree Consulting Ltd, appearing in the list of TPO, Ld. AR submitted that the said company had wide fluctuating margin. Relying on the decision of Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of DCIT v. Affinity Express India P. Ltd [ITA No.595/PN/2013, dt.29.04.2015], Ld. AR submitted that the said company had to be excluded from the list of comparables.
Vis-a-vis, Eclerx Services Ltd, Infosys BPO Ltd and Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd, Ld. AR submitted that they were into knowledge process out-sourcing services and were not comparable with the assessee which was doing technical support services through its call centres. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd v. CIT [ITA.102/2015, dt.10.08.2015], coordinate bench decision in the case of Symphony Marketing Solutions India P. Ltd v. ITO [IT(TP)A No.1316/Bang/2012, dt.14.08.2013], and Delhi Bench decision in the case of iQor India Services P. Ltd v. ITO [ITA.6034/Del/2012, dt.27.04.2015]. Further as per the Ld. AR, Infosys BPO Ltd had to be excluded due to its giant size and ownership of intellectual property. According to him for the very same reason M/s. Wipro Ltd (seg) also had to be excluded from the list of comparables. Reliance was also
72 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
placed on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Stream International Services P. Ltd (supra).
Continuing his arguments, the Ld. AR submitted that M/s Maple E solutions Ltd and Triton Corp Ltd had to be excluded since promoters /directors of these companies were involved in frauds during the previous year relevant to A. Y. 2007-08, rendering their annual reports unreliable. Reliance was placed on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of iQor India services P Ltd (supra) and that of coordinate bench in the case of First Advantage Off shore Services P. Ltd (supra).
From the above paras reproduced from the order of the Tribunal
rendered in the case of M/s HPGS (Supra), it is seen that all these 16
comparables were considered by the Tribunal in that case and it was held
by the Tribunal that these 16 comparables are not good comparable.
Since ld. DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts in
the present case, we decide this issue in favour of assessee by
respectfully following this Tribunal order and the AO/TPO is directed to
exclude these 16 comparables from the final list of comparables. The AO
73 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
should re-calculate the TP adjustment, if any, after excluding these 16
comparables.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in the
terms indicated above.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the
caption page.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAYPAL RAO) (A.K.GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore: D a t e d : 11-08-2016 am Copy to : 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3. CIT(A), Bangalore 4. CIT, Bangalore 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 6. Guard File
By order AR, ITAT, Bangalore
74 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12
Date of Dictation ……………………………………………………….. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member …………………………………. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P. S. ……………………………………………………………….. 4 Date on which the order is placed before the dictating Member for pronouncement ……………….. 5. Date on which the order comes back to the Sr. P.S. ………………………………………………………….. 6. Date of uploading the order on website ………………………………………………………………………….. 7. If not uploaded, furnish the reason for doing so………………. 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk …………………………….. 9. Date on which order does for Xerox & endorsement ………………………………. 10. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk……………. 11 The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order……………………………. 12 The date on which the file goes to the dispatch section for dispatch of the Tribunal order…… 13 Date of dispatch of order……………