SOFTWARE AG BANGALORE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 11.10.2011 of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(2), Bangalore passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 2 of 51

of deduction u/s.10A of the Act. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of design and development of computer software. The

assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s. 10A of the Act in respect profits derived from development and export of computer software. While

computing the export turnover for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act, the AO excluded telephone and communication expenses

(i.e., link charges) as expenses attributable to delivery of computer

software outside India.

‘export turnover’ to mean consideration in respect of export of articles or

things or computer software received in, or brought into India by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange in accordance with sub-section

(3), but does not include freight, telecommunication charges or insurance attributable to the delivery of articles or things or computer software outside

India or expenses, if any, incurred in foreign exchange in providing technical services outside India. The Assessee submitted that none of the

items of aforesaid items fell within the definition of Export Turnover.

Alternatively, it was submitted that if the aforesaid amounts are excluded from the Export Turnover, the same should also be excluded from the Total

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 3 of 51

Turnover. The AO did not accept the claim of the Assessee and excluded the aforesaid items from the Export turnover while computing deduction

u/s.10A of the Act.

and also not accepting the alternative prayer to exclude the said expenses from the total turnover also, the Assessee has raised grounds No.2 & 3

before the Tribunal.

export turnover should also be excluded from the total turnover. In view of

the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, we are of

the view that the ground No.2 raised by the assessee in its appeal does not require any adjudication. Ground No.3 raised by the Assessee in its appeal

praying for alternative relief of excluding the expenses in question both from export turnover and total turnover is accepted.

relate to the addition made by the AO of Rs.1,27,69,561/- to the total income of the Assessee on account of adjustment in the arm’s length

price(ALP) of international transaction entered into by the Assessee with

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 4 of 51

it’s Associated Enterprise (AE) under the provisions of Sec.92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

The said transaction was an international transaction with an Associated Enterprise (AE) and have to pass the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) test as

provided u/s.92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). In grounds No.4 to 14 the dispute is with regard to addition made consequent to determination of

ALP and consequent upward revision and adjustment made to the price at which international transactions were carried out by the Assessee with its

AE in respect of Software development Services.

Financial Results of the Assessee for the F Y 2006-07 Description Amount Operating Revenue Rs 18,50,74,958/- Operating Cost (net). . . . Rs.16,04,31,819/- Operating Profit Rs. 2,46,43,139/- Operating Profit to Cost %age 15.36 %

Development Services

Comparable ultimately selected by TPO and their arithmetic mean :

Sl. Name of company OP / TC Turnover No Rs. In Crores 1 Accel Transmatic Ltd (Seg.) 21.11% 9.68 2 Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd 52.59% 3.55 3 Celestial Labs Ltd 58.35% 14.13

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 5 of 51

4 Datamatics Ltd 1.38% 54.51 5 E-Zest Solutions Ltd 36.12% 6.26 6 Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (Seg.) 25.31% 848.66 7 Geometric Ltd (Seg.) 10.71% 158.38 8 Helios & Matheson Information Technology 36.63% 178.63 Ltd 9 iGate Global Solutions Ltd 7.49% 747.27 10 Infosys Technologies Ltd 40.30% 131.49 11 Ishir Infotech Ltd 30.12% 7.42 12 KALS Information Systems Ltd (Seg.) 30.55% 2.00 13 LGS Global Ltd (Lanco Global Solutions 15.75% 45.39 Ltd) 14 Lucid Software Ltd 19.37% 1.70 15 Mediasoft Solutions Ltd 3.66% 1.85 16 Megasoft Ltd 60.23% 139.33 17 Mindtree Ltd 16.90% 590.35 18 Persistent Systems Ltd 24.52% 293.75 19 Quintegra Solutions Ltd 12.56% 62.72 20 R S Software (India) Ltd 13.47% 101.04 21 R Systems International Ltd (Seg.) 15.07% 112.01 22 S I P Technologies & Exports Ltd 13.90% 3.80 23 Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd 22.16% 343.57 (Seg.) 24 Tata Elxsi Ltd (Seg.) 26.51% 262.58 25 Thirdware Solutions Ltd 25.12% 36.08 26 Wipro Ltd (Seg.) 33.65% 961.09 Arithmetic Mean 25.14% Appellant's OP / TC for FY 2006-07 15.36%

25.14%. After factoring the working capital adjustment of 1.82%, the adjusted arithmetic mean was determined at 23.32%. The computation of

the ALP by the TPO in this regard was as follows:-

“19.7 Computation of Arms Length Price:

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 6 of 51

The arithmetic mean of the Profit Level indicators is taken as the arms length margin. (Please see Annexure B For details of computation of PLI of the comparables). Based on this, the arms length price of the software development services rendered by you is computed as under: Arithmetic mean margin on cost 25.14% Less: Working capital Adjustment( as per Annexure-C) 1.82% Adj.mean margin of comparables 23.32%

Operating Cost Rs.16,04,31,819 Arms Length Margin 23.32% of the operating cost Arms Length Price (ALP) Rs.19,78,44,519/- at 123.32% of operating cost Price Received Rs.18,50,74,958 Shortfall being adjustment u/s.92CA Rs.1,27,69,561

Price received vis-à-vis the Arms Length Price: The price charged by the tax payer to its Associated Enterprises is compared to the Arms Length Price as under: Arms Length Price (ALP) Rs. 19,78,44,519/- At 123.32% of operating cost Price received Rs.18,50,74,958 Shortfall being adjustment Rs.1,27,69,561/- u/s.92CA The above shortfall of Rs.1,27,69,561/- is treated as transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA.”

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 7 of 51

confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment suggested by the TPO. The adjustment confirmed by the DRP was added to the total income of the

assessee by the AO in the fair order of assessment. Against the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has preferred the present appeal

before the Tribunal.

and the margins of the 26 comparable companies finally chosen by the TPO after giving effect to adjustment towards working capital as allowed by

the TPO and also as claimed by the Assessee. The Chart also explains as

how some of the comparable companies chosen by the TPO were not comparable for the reason that these companies were not functionally

comparable. The Chart also gives the cases decided by various Benches of the ITAT where the comparable companies have been held to be not

comparable with that of an Assessee providing IT Software development

Services. We will proceed to consider the comparability of companies chosen by the TPO and listed in para- 9 of this order.

the Assessee. In the additional ground of appeal, the Assessee has

prayed for exclusion of the comparable chosen by the Assessee in its Transfer Pricing study viz., Quintegra Solutions Ltd., and Helios and

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 8 of 51

Matheson Information Technology Ltd., and also exclusion of M/S.E-Zest Solutions Ltd., which is a comparable company chosen by the TPO in the

order u/s.92C of the Act. According to the Assessee the aforesaid companies (excluding Accel Transmatic) have very high turnover and Accel

Transmatic Ltd., has been excluded as functionally not comparable to a

software service provider such as the Assessee in several decisions rendered by the Tribunal in several cases. The Assessee seeks to exclude

the aforesaid companies from the final list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO. The Assessee had considered two of the aforesaid

companies as comparable in its TP study. The TPO also expressed the opinion that the aforesaid companies satisfied all the filters applied by him

for choosing comparable companies. Even before DRP the Assessee did

not object to choosing these two companies as comparable companies.

additional ground placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Special

Bench in the case of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 207 wherein it was held that a taxpayer is

not estopped from pointing out a mistake in the assessment though such mistake is the result of evidence adduced by the taxpayer. The learned

counsel further submitted that the aforesaid two companies were held to be software product companies and therefore not comparable with software

development service provider such as the Assessee in several decisions

rendered by the Tribunal. The decisions rendered by the Tribunal are later

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 9 of 51

in point of time to the Transfer Pricing Study undertaken by the Assessee. The Assessee is entitled to take note of the subsequent judicial

pronouncement and seek to exclude a company which is functionally not comparable with that of the Assessee. The learned DR opposed the prayer

for admission of additional ground. He pointed out that the Assessee in

their Transfer Pricing study accepted these companies as comparable and therefore cannot now seek to exclude the said companies.

companies are comparable or not with the Assessee company in terms of

FAR analysis, has to be decided on the basis of data which is available in the public domain i.e., published annual report of these two companies..

Therefore facts necessary to apply the filter sought to be relied upon by the Assessee in the additional ground of appeal are already available on

record. Therefore there can be no valid objection to deciding the question

of applying the aforesaid filter, if otherwise it is found to be a valid filter. On the question of the Assessee having chosen the aforesaid two

companies as comparable and therefore cannot be permitted to change its stand now, we are of the view that the decision of the Special Bench,

Chandigarh in the case of Quark Systems (supra) clearly supports the plea of the Assessee. The Special Bench in the aforesaid decision in the case

of Quark Systems (supra) has after considering the OECD Commentaries

observed as follows:-

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 10 of 51

“35. In para 4.16 of latest report, the OECD provides the following guidelines : "In practice, neither countries nor taxpayers should misuse the burden of proof in the manner described above. Because of the difficulties with transfer pricing analysis, it would be appropriate for both taxpayers and tax administrations to take special care and to use restraint in relying on the burden of proof in the course of the examination of a transfer pricing case. More particularly, as a matter of good practice the burden of proof should not be misused by tax administrations or taxpayers as a justification for making groundless or unverifiable assertions about transfer pricing. A tax administration should be prepared to make good faith showing that its determination of transfer pricing is consistent with the arm’s length principle even where the burden of proof is on the taxpayer, and the taxpayers similarly should be prepared to make good faith showing that their transfer pricing is consistent with the arm’s length principle regardless of where the burden of proof lies."

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 11 of 51

the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration of claim of the taxpayer and make a de novo adjudication of the arm’s length price after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly.”

have been held to be not comparable with software development service

provider such as the Assessee in several decisions rendered by the Tribunal, the main decision being in the case of Trilogy E-Business

Software India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1054/Bang/2011 Bangalore ITAT. The decisions rendered by the Tribunal are later in point of time to the Transfer

Pricing Study undertaken by the Assessee. The Assessee is entitled to take note of the subsequent judicial pronouncement and seek to exclude a

company which is functionally not comparable with that of the Assessee.

Even in respect of the other companies high turnover has been held to be a criteria to reject a company as a comparable in the aforesaid decision of

ITAT Bangalore in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. (supra). As held by the Special Bench in the case of Quark Systems

(supra), there cannot be any tax liability on the basis of admission and the

determination of tax liability has to be in accordance with law. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, we are of the view that the

additional ground of appeal deserves to be admitted for adjudication. Accordingly, the additional ground is admitted for adjudication.

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 12 of 51

“18. As regards the group 2 companies which are to be excluded as functionally different based on the Tribunal’s order in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd., we find that these companies are- 1) Accel Transmatic 2) Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd. 3) Celestial Labs Ltd.

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 13 of 51

4) KALS Information Systems Ltd.

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 14 of 51

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) Operating Margin 32.55% 52.59% 25.62% - 9.87%

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 15 of 51

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 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.

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 16 of 51

biotechnology area, the company has signed the Technology transfer agreement with IMTECH CHANDIGARH (a very reputed CSIR organization) to manufacture and market initially two Enzymes, Alpha Amylase and Alkaline Protease in India and overseas. The company is planning to set up a biotechnology facility to manufacture industrial enzymes. This facility would also include the research laboratories for carrying out further R & D activities to develop new candidates’ drug molecules and license them to Interested Pharma and Bio Companies across the GLOBE. The proposed Facility will be set up in Genome Valley at Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh.’ According to the learned D.R. celestial labs is also in the field of research in pharmaceutical products and should be considered as comparable. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Assessee, the discovery is in relation to a software discovery of new drugs. Moreover the company also is owner of the IPR. There is however a reference to development of a molecule to treat cancer using bio- informatics tools for which patenting process was also being pursued. As explained earlier it is a diversified company and therefore cannot be considered as comparable functionally with that of the Assessee. There has been no attempt made to identify and eliminate and make adjustment of the profit margins so that the difference in functional comparability can be eliminated. By not resorting to such a process of making adjustment, the TPO has rendered this company as not qualifying for comparability. We therefore accept the plea of the Assessee in this regard.’ ” 44. 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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 17 of 51

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 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 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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 18 of 51

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. (d) 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 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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 19 of 51

to be excluded from the final set of comparables, and thus on this aspect, assessee succeeds.” Based on all the above, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that KALS Information Systems Limited should be rejected as a comparable.

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 20 of 51

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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 21 of 51

respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we hold that these two companies are also to be excluded.”

we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid companies from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP.

comparable companies chosen by the TPO viz., M/S.Megasoft Limited 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 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). In coming to the

aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra) followed the decision rendered in the case of

Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No.1064/Bang/2011 for AY 07-08 order dated 23.11.2012. The following

were the relevant observations in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra):

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 22 of 51

“27. As far as adoption of Mega Soft Ltd., as one of comparables, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there is an error in computing its net margin. He has drawn our attention to the order of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E- Business Software India Pvt.Ltd., at para 24 to 27 at page 18, wherein the error in computing the net margin of this company has been taken note of and it has been directed as under: “(a) Megasoft Ltd. : 24. 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 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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 23 of 51

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. 25. 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 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(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 24 of 51

margin by following the direction of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd.”

“12. (4) 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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 25 of 51

cited various portions of the Annual Report of this company to this effect which is as under :- (i) The company has an Intellectual Property (IP) Cell to guide its employees to leverage the power of IP for their growth. In 2008, this company generated over 102 invention disclosures and filed an aggregate 10 patents in India and the USA. Till date this company has filed an aggregate of 119 patent applications (pending) in India and USA out of which 2 have been granted in the US. (ii) This company has substantial revenues from software products and the break-up of the software product revenues is not available. (iii) This company has incurred huge research and development expenditure to the tune of approximately Rs.200 Crores. (iv) This company has a revenue sharing agreement towards acquisition of IPR in AUTOLAY, a commercial software product used in designing high performance structural systems. (v) The assessee also placed reliance on the following judicial decisions :- (a) ITAT, Delhi Bench decision in the case of Agnity India Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.3856/Del/2010) and (b) Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1054/Bang/2011)

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. 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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 26 of 51

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 break up 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. 13.0 (5) 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. 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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 27 of 51

from sale of product and software services. The TPO appears to have adopted this company as a comparable without demonstrating how the company satisfies the software development sales 75% of the total revenue filter adopted by him. Another major flaw in the comparability analysis carried out by the TPO is that he adopted comparison of the consolidated financial statements of Wipro with the stand alone financials of the assessee; which is not an appropriate comparison. 13.4.2 We also find that this company owns intellectual property in the form of registered patents and several pending applications for grant of patents. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.227/Bang/2010) has held that a company owning intangibles cannot be compared to a low risk captive service provider who does not own any such intangible and hence does not have an additional advantage in the market. As the assessee in the case on hand does not own any intangibles, following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e. 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that this company cannot be 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. 14.0 (6) 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.

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 28 of 51

In the submissions made the assessee had quoted relevant portions from the Annual Report of the company 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 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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 29 of 51

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.”

“14. E-Zest Solutions Ltd. 14.1 This company was selected by the TPO as a comparable. Before the TPO, the assessee had objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable on the ground that it was functionally different from the assessee. The TPO had rejected the objections raised by the assessee on the ground that as per the information received in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act, this company is engaged in software development services and satisfies all the filters. 14.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative contended that this company ought to be excluded from the list of

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 30 of 51

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 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 carefullyconsidered the material on record. It is seen from the record that the TPO has included this company in the list of comparbales 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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 31 of 51

InformationSystems (India) (P) Ltd. Supra) that KPO services are not comparable to software development services and are therefore not comparable. Following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the aforesaid case, we hold that this company, i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd. be omitted from the set of comparables for the period under consideration in the case on hand. The A.O. /TPO is accordingly directed. 15. Thirdware Solutions Ltd. (Segment) 15.1 This company was proposed for inclusion in the list of comparables by the TPO. Before the TPO, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables on the ground that its turnover was in excess of Rs.500 Crores. Before us, the assessee has objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable for the reason that apart from software development services, it is in the business of product development and trading in software and giving licenses for use of software. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that :- (i) This company is engaged in product development and earns revenue from sale of licences and subscription. It has been pointed out from the Annual Report that the company has not provided any separate segmental profit and loss account for software development services and product development services. (ii) In the case of E-Gain communications Pvt. Ltd. (2008-TII-04- ITAT-PUNE-TP), the Tribunal has directed that this company be omitted as a comparable for software service providers, as its income includes income from sale of licences which has increased the margins of the company. The learned A.R. prayed that in the light of the above facts and in view of the afore cited decision of the Tribunal (supra), this company ought to be omitted from the list of comparables. 15.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the action of the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables. 15.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is seen from the

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 32 of 51

material on record that the company is engaged in product development and earns revenue from sale of licenses and subscription. However, the segmental profit and loss accounts for software development services and product development are not given separately. Further, as pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of E-Gain Communications Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has directed that since the income of this company includes income from sale of licenses, it ought to be rejected as a comparable for software development services. In the case on hand, the assessee is rendering software development services. In this factual view of the matter and following the afore cited decision of the Pune Tribunal (supra), we direct that this company be omitted from the list of comparables for the period under consideration in the case on hand.” “17. Persistent Systems Ltd. 17.1.1 This company was selected by the TPO as a comparable. The assessee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable for the reasons that this company being engaged in software product designing and analytic services, it is functionally different and further that segmental results are not available. The TPO rejected the assessee's objections on the ground that as per the Annual Report for the company for Financial Year 2007-08, it is mainly a software development company and as per the details furnished in reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act, software development constitutes 96% of its revenues. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer included this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., in the list of comparables as it qualified the functionality criterion. 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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 33 of 51

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. (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 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.

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 34 of 51

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 35 of 51

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 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 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 thecase 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 form the list of comparables, as in the case on hand.

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 36 of 51

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 proprietary software products and owns its own intangibles unlike the assessee in the case on hand who is a software service provider.”

“16. 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

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 37 of 51

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. 17. As per the discussion in para 6.3.2. of the order of the TPO, the reason advanced for including KALS Information Systems Ltd., is to the effect that the said concern’s application software segment is engaged in the development of software which can be considered as comparable to the assessee company. The said concern is engaged in two segments namely application software segment and Training. As per the TPO, the application software segment is functionally comparable to the assessee as the said concern is engaged in software services. The stand of the assessee is that a perusal of the Annual Report of the said concern for F.Y. 2006-07 reveals that the application software segment is engaged in the business of sale of software products and software services. The assessee pointed out this to the TPO in its written submissions, copy of which is placed in the Paper book at page 420.3 to 420.4. The assessee further pointed out that there was no bifurcation available between the business of sale of software products and the business of software services, and therefore, it was not appropriate to adopt the application software segment of the said concern for the purposes of comparability with the assessee’s IT-Services Segment. The TPO however, noticed that though the application software segment of the said concern may be engaged in selling of some of the software products which are developed by it, however, the said concern was not into trading of software products as there were no cost of purchases debited in the Profit & Loss Account. Though the TPO agreed that the quantum of revenue from sale of products was not available as per the financial statements of the said concern, but as the basic function of the said concern was software development, it was includible as it was functionally comparable to the assessee’s segment of IT-Services. 18. Before us, apart from reiterating the points raised before the TPO and the DRP, the Ld. Counsel submitted that in the immediately preceeding assessment year of 2006-07, the said concern was evaluated by the assessee and was found functionally incomparable. For the said purpose, our reference has been invited to pages 421 to 542 of the Paper book, which is

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 38 of 51

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. 19. In our considered opinion, the point raised by the assessee is potent in as much as it is quite evident that the said concern has not been found to be functionally comparable with the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment year and in the present year also, on the basis of the Annual Report, referred to in the written submissions addressed to the lower authorities, the assessee has correctly asserted out that the said concern was inter alia engaged in sale of software products, which was quite distinct from the activity undertaken by the assessee in the IT Services segment. At the time of hearing, neither is there any argument put forth by the Revenue and nor is there any discussion emerging from the orders of the lower authorities as to in what manner the functional profile of the said concern has undergone a change from that in the immediately preceding year. Therefore, having regard to the factual aspects brought out by the assessee, it is correctly asserted that the application software segment of the said concern is not comparable to the assessee’s segment of IT services. 20. With regard to the inclusion of Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., the assessee has raised similar arguments as in the case of KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg). We have perused the relevant para of the order of the TPO i.e., 6.3.21, in terms of which the said concern has been included as a comparable concern. The assessee pointed out that as in the case of KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg), in the instant case also for A.Y. 2006-07 the said concern was found functionally incomparable by the assessee in its Transfer pricing study and the said position was not disturbed by the TPO. The relevant portion of the Transfer pricing study, placed at page 432 of the Paper book has been pointed out in support. Considered in the aforesaid light, on the basis of the discussion in relation to KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg), in the instant case also

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 39 of 51

we find that the said concern is liable to be excluded from the list of comparables.”

we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid company from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP.

26 comparable companies chosen by the TPO, the following companies will have to be excluded as the turnover of these companies are more than

Rs.200 crores and cannot be compared with the Assessee whose turnover is less than Rs.20 crores:

(1) Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. 848.66 crores (2) iGate Global Solutions Ltd. 747.27 crores (3) Mindtree Ltd. 590.39 crores (4) Persistent Systems Ltd. 293.74 crores (5) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. 343.57 crores (6) Tata Elxsi Ltd. 262.58 crores (7) Wipro Ltd. 9616.09 crores (8) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 13149 crores

case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. (supra) (ITA No.1338/Bang/2010) for same assessment year on the application of

turnover filter and it was submitted that the aforesaid comparable

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 40 of 51

companies have to be excluded from the final list of comparables selected by the TPO.

Assessee and the learned DR. In the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India (P) Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal on application of the turnover filter while

selecting comparable companies for comparability analysis held as follows:

“(1) Turnover Filter

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 41 of 51

“Size criteria in terms of Sales, Assets or Number of Employees: The size of the transaction in absolute value or in proportion to the activities of the parties might affect the relative competitive positions of the buyer and seller and therefore comparability.” 12. The ICAI TP Guidelines note on this aspect lay down in para 15.4 that a transaction entered into by a Rs. 1,000 crore company cannot be compared with the transaction entered into by a Rs. 10 crore company. The two most obvious reasons are the size of the two companies and the relative economies of scale under which they operate. The fact that they operate in the same market may not make them comparable enterprises. The relevant extract is as follows [on Rule 10B(3)]: “Clause (i) lays down that if the differences are not material, the transactions would be comparable. These differences could either be with reference to the transaction or with reference to the enterprise. For instance, a transaction entered into by a Rs 1,000 crore company cannot be compared with the transaction entered into by a Rs 10 crore company. The two most obvious reasons are the size of the two companies and the relative economies of scale under which they operate.” 13. It was further submitted that the TPO’s range (Rs. 1 crore to infinity) has resulted in selection of companies like Infosys which is 277 times bigger than the Assessee (turnover of Rs. 13,149 crores as compared to Rs. 47.47 crores of Assessee). It was submitted that an appropriate turnover range should be applied in selecting comparable uncontrolled companies. 14. Reference was made to the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Genesis Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010, wherein relying on Dun and Bradstreet’s analysis, the turnover of RS. 1 crore to RS. 200 crores was held to be proper. The following relevant observations were brought to our notice:- “9. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions and also the judicial precedents on the issue, we find that the TPO himself has rejected the companies which .ire (sic) making losses as comparables. This shows that there is a limit for the lower end for identifying the

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 42 of 51

comparables. In such a situation, we are unable to understand as to why there should not be an upper limit also. What should be upper limit is another factor to be considered. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the size matters in business. A big company would be in a position to bargain the price and also attract more customers. It would also have a broad base of skilled employees who are able to give better output. A small company may not have these benefits and therefore, the turnover also would come down reducing profit margin. Thus, as held by the various benches of the Tribunal, when companies which arc loss making are excluded from comparables, then the super profit making companies should also be excluded. For the purpose of classification of companies on the basis of net sales or turnover, we find that a reasonable classification has to be made. Dun & Bradstreet & Bradstreet and NASSCOM have given different ranges. Taking the Indian scenario into consideration, we feel that the classification made by Dun & Bradstreet is more suitable and reasonable. In view of the same, we hold that the turnover filter is very important and the companies having a turnover of Rs.1.00 crore to 200 crores have to be taken as a particular range and the assessee being in that range having turnover of 8.15 crores, the companies which also have turnover of 1.00 to 200.00 crores only should be taken into consideration for the purpose of making TP study.” 15. It was brought to our notice that the above proposition has also been followed by the Honourable Bangalore ITAT in the following cases: 1. M/s Kodiak Networks (India) Private Limited Vs. ACIT (ITA No.1413/Bang/2010) 2. M/s Genesis Microchip (I) Private Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.1254/Bang/20l0). 3. Electronic for Imaging India Private Limited (ITA No. 1171/Bang/2010).

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 43 of 51

It was finally submitted that companies having turnover more than Rs. 200 crores ought to be rejected as not comparable with the Assessee.

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 44 of 51

(e) transactional net margin method; (f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board.

(2) The most appropriate method referred to in sub- section (1) shall be applied, for determination of arm’s length price, in the manner as may be prescribed: Provided that where more than one price is determined by the most appropriate method, the arm’s length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices:

Provided further that if the variation between the arm’s length price so determined and price at which the international transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed five per cent of the latter, the price at which the international transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed to be the arm’s length price.

(3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income, the Assessing Officer is, on the basis of material or information or document in his possession, of the opinion that— (a) the price charged or paid in an international transaction has not been determined in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2); or (b) any information and document relating to an international transaction have not been kept and maintained by the assessee in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 92D and the rules made in this behalf; or (c) the information or data used in computation of the arm’s length price is not reliable or correct; or (d) the assessee has failed to furnish, within the specified time, any information or document which he was required to furnish by a notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2),

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 45 of 51

on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:”

(e) transactional net margin method, by which,— (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction entered into with an associated enterprise is computed in relation to costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed or to be employed by the enterprise or having regard to any other relevant base; (ii) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise or by an unrelated enterprise from a comparable uncontrolled transaction or a number of such transactions is computed having regard to the same base; (iii) the net profit margin referred to in sub- clause (ii) arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions is adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market; (iv) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise and referred to in sub-clause (i) is established to be the same as the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause (iii);

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 46 of 51

(v) the net profit margin thus established is then taken into account to arrive at an arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction.

(2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction shall be judged with reference to the following, namely:— (a) the specific characteristics of the property transferred or services provided in either transaction; (b) the functions performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and the risks assumed, by the respective parties to the transactions; (c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how the responsibilities, risks and benefits are to be divided between the respective parties to the transactions; (d) conditions prevailing in the markets in which the respective parties to the transactions operate, including the geographical location and size of the markets, the laws and Government orders in force, costs of labour and capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail.

(3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if—

(i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid in, or the profit arising from, such transactions in the open market; or

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 47 of 51

(ii) reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences.

(4) The data to be used in analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction shall be the data relating to the financial year in which the international transaction has been entered into : Provided that data relating to a period not being more than two years prior to such financial year may also be considered if such data reveals facts which could have an influence on the determination of transfer prices in relation to the transactions being compared.”

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 48 of 51

Turnover Rs. (1) Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. 848.66 crores (2) iGate Global Solutions Ltd. 747.27 crores (3) Mindtree Ltd. 590.39 crores (4) Persistent Systems Ltd. 293.74 crores (5) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. 343.57 crores (6) Tata Elxsi Ltd. 262.58 crores (7) Wipro Ltd. 961.09 crores. (8) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 13149 crores.”

case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. (supra), we hold that the aforesaid companies should be excluded from the list of comparable

companies. The AO is directed to compute the Arithmetic mean by excluding the aforesaid companies from the list of comparable. The AO is

also directed to give the benefit of - / + 5% benefit margin to the arithmetic

mean so calculated, if the Assessee is otherwise entitled to the same and thereafter compute the ALP of the international transaction in question.

the operating income while computing operating margins of the Assessee

and the comparable companies. According to him such a gain or loss was inextricably connected with the software service and income there from

derived by the Assessee and similar software development service providers and therefore the said gain or loss should either go to increase or

decree the operating income. It is only after such adjustment that the

operating margins of the Assessee and the comparable companies should

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 49 of 51

be compared. In this regard, he brought to our notice the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Trilogy E- Business Software India P. Ltd., in ITA 1054/Bang/2011, dt 23.11.2012, for the A. Y. 2007-08, wherein the Tribunal held as follows :

"(B) Treating foreign exchange gain or loss and provision for bad debts as non-operating in nature and fringe benefit tax as part of operating cost: As far as foreign exchange gain/loss being considered as not forming part of the operating cost, the reasoning of the revenue is that such loss or gain cannot be said to be one realized from international transaction though they may form part of the gain/loss of the enterprise and therefore they should be excluded while determining operating cost. On the above issue we find that the Bangalore Bench of ITAT in the case of Sap Labs India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2011)44 SOT 156 (Bang.) has taken the view that Foreign Exchange Fluctuation gains are required to be added to operating revenue. Following the same, the AO is directed to accept the claim of the Assessee in this regard. As far as provision for bad debts are concerned, the TPO has accepted that the same would be part of operating expenses provided the same is incurred every year for at least three years and the manner in which provision is made is consistent. The Assessee in reply to the query of the TPO on the above aspect has not furnished any details. We are of the view that the Assessee should be afforded opportunity to explain its position on the above and the AO is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. As far as Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) is concerned, the same was not considered by the TPO as part of operating cost in the case of comparables and therefore the same should also not be considered as part of operating cost of the Assessee. We hold accordingly and direct the Assessing Officer to compute the operating cost of the Assessee."

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 50 of 51

operating revenue for the purpose of computing the Assessee’s margin to be compared with the margin of the comparable companies. The learned

DR however placed reliance on the DRP's order on this issue.

realization of the consideration for rendering software development services. It is therefore incurred in the normal course of business and

therefore there is no reason why it should be excluded from determining

the operating revenue for the purpose of calculation of operating margin. In our view, the analogy drawn by the DRP regarding exclusion of interest

expenses while computing operating margins is not proper. In our view, foreign exchange gain on realization of consideration for rendering software

development services should be regarding as part of the operating

revenue. Following the decision of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of SAP Labs (supra), we hold that the operating revenue for the assessee

be computed by including the foreign exchange gain.

urged before us except on the comparability of the comparable companies

chosen by the TPO.

IT(TP)A No.1306/Bang/2011 Page 51 of 51

Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of September, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 30th September, 2015.

/D S/

Copy to:

By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.