Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Facetime Communications India Pvt. ... vs Assessee on 17 October, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"A" BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT(TP)A No.1295/Bang/2010
Assessment year : 2006-07
M/s. Actiance India Private Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer,
(formerly known as FaceTime Ward 11(2),
Communications India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bangalore.
Le Parc Richmonde,
51, Richmond Road,
Bangalore - 560 025.
PAN : AABCV2926N
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Appellant by : Shri Chavali S.Narayan, C.A.
Respondent by : Shri T.S.N. Murthy CIT-I(DR)
Date of hearing : 13.10.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2014
ORDER
Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member
This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 28.9.2010 of the ITO, Ward 11(2), Bangalore, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] in relation to assessment year 2006-07.
2. Ground No.1 is general in nature, calling for no specific adjudication.
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 2 of 26
3. Grounds No.2 to 4 raised by the Assessee project the grievance of the Assessee regarding the action of the learned Assessing Officer and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, excluding expenses incurred on travel expenses in foreign currency and expenses incurred towards telecommunication expenses from export turnover on the ground that these expenses are incurred in rendering technical services rendered to clients outside India, while computing deduction under section 10A. It is the plea of the Assessee that at all times, during the relevant previous year, it was engaged in development of computer software and not rendering any technical services. Without prejudice to its contention that the aforesaid sums should not be excluded from the export turnover while computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act, the Assessee has also made an alternate prayer that if the expenses are reduced from the export turnover, the same should also be reduced from the total turnover and in this regard, has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Karn).
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the assessee and the ld. DR on the issues raised in ground Nos.2 to 4. Taking into consideration the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Karn), we are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to exclude expenses incurred in foreign currency towards travelling and expenses incurred towards telecommunication both from export turnover and total IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 3 of 26 turnover, as has been prayed for by the assessee in ground No.4. In view of the acceptance of the alternative prayer in ground No.4, we are of the view that no adjudication is required on ground No.2 & 3.
5. Grounds No.5 to 15 raised by the assessee are with regard to the addition to the total income by way of adjustment to the Arm's Length Price ("ALP") to an international transaction carried out by the assessee u/s.
92CA of the Act. At the time of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted that the comparable companies chosen by the TPO and the addition made by the AO in the draft assessment order, which was confirmed by the DRP, are identical to the case decided by the Tribunal in ITA No.1054/Bang/2011 for AY 07-08 in M/s. Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 12(4), Bangalore; and Yodlee Infotech Vs. ITO, ITA No.1397/Bang/2010 for A.Y.2006-07. It was also submitted that the business profile of the Assessee and that of the Assessee in the case of M/s. Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt.
Ltd. (supra) and Yodlee Infotech (supra) were also identical. This submission was found to be correct at the time of hearing. With this background, we will now consider the factual basis of the present case and the decision rendered in the case of Triology E-Business Software India Pvt.Ltd. (supra).
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 4 of 26
6. The assessee is a company. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s.
Face Time, USA. It rendered software development research and development services to its holding company. It was remunerated on a cost plus 10% mark up for services rendered to it's holding company. It is not in dispute, before us, that the transaction of providing software research & development support services by the Assessee to its holding company was an international transaction with the Associated Enterprise "("AE") and therefore the price at which the assessee renders services to its AE has to pass the Arm's Length Price (ALP) test as laid down by section 92C of the Act. During the financial year 2005-06, the assessee provided software research & development support services to its AE and was remunerated on a 'cost plus' basis. The total value of international transaction with respect to the provision of software research & development support services by the assessee to its AE was Rs. 9,84,50,937.
7. In support of the assessee's claim that the price charged by it for services rendered to its AE was at arms' length, the assessee filed a report as required by the provisions of section 92E of the Act in Form 3EB together with detailed analysis. The assessee adopted Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP. Operating profits to cost was adopted as the Profit Level Indicator ("PLI"). The PLI of the assessee was arrived at as follows:-
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 5 of 26 Operating Revenue Rs.9,84,50,937 Operating Cost Rs.8,83,97,189 Operating Profit Rs.1,00,53,748 Op.Pr/cost% 11.37%
8. The TPO arrived at a final set of 20 comparables. The set of 20 comparables is given as Annexure-I to this order.
9. The assessee raised various objections to the methodology adopted and the reasons assigned by the TPO for rejecting the comparables chosen by the assessee in its TP study. In the course of proceedings before the TPO, notice u/s. 133(6) has been issued to the companies that were chosen as comparable by the assessee as well as the TPO and on the basis of the replies received in response to such notices, certain inferences were drawn by the TPO. The action of the TPO in relying on some of those information was also challenged by the assessee. The TPO finally passed an order u/s. 92CA of the Act and on the basis of the comparables set out in Annexure-I to this order, arrived at arithmetic mean of 20.68%. After factoring the working capital adjustment of 1.51%, the adjusted arithmetic mean was determined at 19.17%. The computation of the ALP by the TPO in this regard was as follows:-
"Computation of Arms Length Price:
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 the taxpayer to its AE(s) is computed as under:-
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010
Page 6 of 26
Arithmetic mean PLI 20.67%
Less: Working capital Adjustment (Annexure-C) 1.51%
Adj.Arithmetic mean PLI 19.17%
Arm's Length Price:
Operating Cost Rs.8,83,97,189
Arms Length Margin 19.17% of the operating cost
Arms Length Price (ALP) Rs.10,53,42,930/-
at 119.17% of operating cost
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.10,53,42,930/- At 119.17% of operating cost Price charged in the international Rs.9,84,50,937 transactions Shortfall being adjustment u/s.92CA Rs.68,91,931 The above shortfall of Rs.68,91,931/- is treated as transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA."
10. Against the said adjustment proposed by the TPO which was incorporated in the draft assessment order by the AO, the assessee filed objections before the DRP. The DRP rejected those objections and 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.
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 7 of 26
11. The ld. counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that out of the 20 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. 595.12 crores (2) iGate Global Solutions Ltd. 527.91 crores (3) Mindtree Ltd. 448.79 crores (4) Persistent Systems Ltd. 209.18 crores (5) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. (Seg.) 240.03 crores (6) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 9028 crores
12. Our attention was drawn to the observations of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on the application of turnover filter and it was submitted that the aforesaid comparable companies have to be excluded from the final list of comparables selected by the TPO.
13. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee and the learned DR. In the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal on application of the turnover filter while selecting comparable companies for comparability analysis held as follows:-
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 8 of 26 "(1) Turnover Filter
11. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the TPO has applied a lower turnover filter of RS. 1 crore, but has not chosen to apply any upper turnover limit. In this regard, it was submitted by him that under rule 10B(3) to the Income-tax Rules, it was necessary for comparing an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction that there should not be any difference between the transactions compared or the enterprises entering into such transaction, which are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid or profit arising from such transaction in the open market. Further it is also necessary to see that wherever there are some differences such differences should be capable of reasonable accurate adjustment in monetary terms to eliminate the effect of such differences. It was his submission that size was an important facet of the comparability exercise. It was submitted that significant differences in size of the companies would impact comparability. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 207, wherein the Special Bench had laid down that it is improper to proceed on the basis of lower limit of 1 crore turnover with no higher limit on turnover, as the same was not reasonable classification. Several other decisions were referred to in this regard laying down identical proposition. We are not referring to those decisions as the decision of the Special Bench on this aspect would hold the field. Reference was also made to the OECD TP Guidelines, 2010 wherein it has been observed as follows:-
"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 IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 9 of 26 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 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 IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 10 of 26 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 was finally submitted that companies having turnover more than Rs. 200 crores ought to be rejected as not comparable with the Assessee.
16. The ld. DR, on the other hand pointed out that even the assessee in its own TP study has taken companies having turnover of more than RS. 200 crores as comparables. In these circumstances, it was submitted by him that the assessee cannot have any grievance in this regard.
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 11 of 26
17. We have considered the rival submissions. The provisions of the Act and the Rules that are relevant for deciding the issue have to be first seen. Sec.92. of the Act provides that any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm's length price. Sec.92-B provides that "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to any one or more of such enterprises. Sec.92- A defines what is an Associated Enterprise. In the present case there is no dispute that the transaction between the Assessee and its AE was an international transaction attracting the provisions of Sec.92 of the Act. Sec.92C provides the manner of computation of Arm's length price in an international transaction and it provides:-
(1) that the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe, namely :--
(a) comparable uncontrolled price method;
(b) resale price method;
(c) cost plus method;
(d) profit split method;
(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:
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 12 of 26 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), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:"
18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm's length price under section 92C:-
"10B. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 13 of 26 methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :--
(a).......
to
(d)........
(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);
(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:--
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 14 of 26
(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
(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 :
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 15 of 26 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."
19. A reading of the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules shows that uncontrolled transaction has to be compared with international transaction having regard to the factors set out therein. Before us there is no dispute that the TNMM is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP of the international transaction. The disputes are with regard to the comparability of the comparable relied upon by the TPO.
20. In this regard we find that the provisions of law pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee as well as the decisions referred to by the ld. counsel for the assessee clearly lay down the principle that the turnover filter is an important criteria in choosing the comparables. The assessee's turnover is RS. 47,46,66,638. It would therefore fall within the category of companies in the range of turnover between 1 crore and 200 crores (as laid down in the case of Genesis Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010) . Thus, companies having turnover of more than 200 crores have to be eliminated from the list of comparables as laid down in several decisions referred to by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Applying those tests, the following companies will have to be excluded from the list of 26 comparables drawn by the TPO viz., 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.
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010
Page 16 of 26
14. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that the following companies should be excluded from the list of comparable companies.
(1) Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. 595.12 crores
(2) iGate Global Solutions Ltd. 527.91 crores
(3) Mindtree Ltd. 448.79 crores
(4) Persistent Systems Ltd. 209.18 crores
(5) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. (Seg.) 240.03 crores
(6) Infosys Technologies Ltd. 9028 crores
15. The AO is directed to compute the Arithmetic mean by excluding the aforesaid companies from the list of comparable.
16. Improper selection of comparables: It was submitted by the learned counsel for the Assessee that the following companies are not functionally comparable with that of the Assessee.
a) KALS Information Systems Limited
b) Accel Transmission Limited.
17. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein these companies were held to be not IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 17 of 26 functionally comparable with that of a pure software developer like the Assessee.
18. The following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal on the aforesaid comparable companies in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra):-
"(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 RS. 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 IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 18 of 26 aspects have not been factually rebutted and, in our view, the said concern is liable to be excluded from the final set of comparables, and thus on this aspect, assessee succeeds."
Based on all the above, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that KALS Information Systems Limited should be rejected as a comparable.
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."
"(e) 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 (P) 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
(ii) Ushus Technologies - offshore development centre for embedded software, net work system, imaging technologies, outsourced product development IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 19 of 26
(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."
49. 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."
19. The facts and circumstances under which the aforesaid companies were considered as comparable is identical in the case of the Assessee as well as in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd.
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 20 of 26 (supra). Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct that the following companies be excluded from the list of 26 comparable arrived at by the TPO:-
a) KALS Information Systems Limited
b) Accel Transmission Limited.
20. As far as the comparable chosen by the TPO viz., TATA Elxsi is concerned, this Tribunal in the case of Yodlee Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.1538/Bang/2012 by its order dated 30.8.2013 held that this company is not functionally comparable with a software development service provider. The following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal in this regard.
"15. Tata Elxsi Limited.
15.1.1 This company was selected by the TPO for inclusion in the set of comparables. Before the TPO, the assessee had objected to the inclusion of this company in the set of comparables for various reasons such as functional dis- similarity significant R & D activity, brand value, size, etc. The TPO, however, rejected the assessee's objections and included the company in the set of comparables. Before us, in this appeal the learned Authorised Representative reiterated that this company is not functionally comparable to the assessee as it performs a variety of activities and functions under the software development and services segment and has drawn our attention to and quoted from the Annual Report of the company.
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 21 of 26 15.1.2 The learned Authorised Representative submitted that as per the Annual Report, this company operates in two segments, namely,
1. Systems and Integration Support Services - which caters to the domestic market and offers integrated hardware and packaged software solutions sourced from principals and
2. Software development services - While the TPO has considered the software development and services segment as comparable to the assessee, the learned Authorised Representative submits that on perusal of the Annual Report of the company, it can be observed that the software development segment cannot be considered for analysis for the following reasons :
(i) As per the Directors Report and the Management Discussion and Analysis, the software development and services segment comprises of three sub-services namely :
a) Product Design Services i.e. design and development of hardware and software.
b) Innovation Design Engineering i.e. Mechanical Design with a focus on Industrial Design; and
c) Visual Computing Labs i.e. Animation and Special Effects for Movies and TV.
ii) As the software development and services segment comprises of hardware, software and animation services, there is no sub-
services break-up / information provided in the Annual Report OR the Databases, the learned Authorised Representative contends that this company should be rejected as a comparable as it is functionally different from the assessee.
15.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below on this issue.
15.3.1 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record including the judicial IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 22 of 26 decisions relied upon. From the record, we find that this company is predominantly engaged in product designing services and not purely software development services. The references made to the Annual Report by the learned Authorised Representative show that the segment "software development and services" relates to design services and are not similar to software support services performed by the assessee in the case on hand. Further, the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Telecordia Technologies India Pvt . Ltd. (ITA No.7821/Mum/2011) has held, that this company, M/s. Tata Elxsi Ltd. is not a software development service provider, at para 7.7 on page 21 of its order which is extracted hereunder :
" 7.7 .... 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 fit for comparability analysis for determining the arms length price for the assessee, hence, should be excluded from the list of comparable parties."
As can be seen from the extracts of the Annual Report of this company, placed before us, this factual position pertaining to Tata Elxsi Ltd., has not changed from Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2008-09. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that this company is not to be considered for inclusion in the set of comparable in the case on hand for the period under consideration and therefore direct the TPO to exclude this company from the final set of comparables for the period under consideration."
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 23 of 26
21. In view of the above, the aforesaid company should also be excluded for the purpose of comparison while determining the ALP of the international transaction in question.
22. As far as the comparable chosen by the TPO viz., Megasoft Ltd. in the list of final comparables chosen by the TPO is concerned, this Tribunal in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had held that only segmental data of the said company should be taken for the purpose of comparison. Following are the relevant observations of the Tribunal:-
"37. The next plea of the Assessee is that if at all this company is considered as a comparable then the segmental margin of
23.11% (which is the margin for software service segment) alone should be considered for comparability. On the above submission, we find that the TPO considered the segmental margin (Software service segment) in the case of Geometric, Kals Info systems, R Systems, Sasken Communication and Tata Elxsi. Before DRP the Assessee pointed out that the segmental margin of 23.11% alone should be taken for comparability. The DRP has not given any specific finding on the above plea of the Assessee. Perusal of the order of the TPO shows that 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 (developing 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 IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 24 of 26 explained that 30 to 40% of the product software (software developed) 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 software development) 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. Having drawn the above conclusion, the TPO did not bother to quantify the revenues which can be attributed to software product development and software development service but adopted the margin of this company at the entity level. In terms of Rule 10B(3)(b) of the Rules, 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
(ii) reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences.
38. Neither the TPO nor the DRP have noticed that there is bound to be a difference between the Assessee and Megasoft and the profit arising to the Megasoft as a result of the existence of the software product segment and no finding has been given that reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences. For this reason, we are inclined to hold that the profit margin of 23.11% which is the margin of the software service segment be taken for comparability. In view of the above conclusion, we do not wish to go into the question as to whether 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."
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 25 of 26
23. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, segmental margins in so far as it relates to providing software services by Megasoft alone should be taken for the purpose of comparison.
24. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted before us that if the aforesaid 9 comparable companies are excluded from the list of 20 comparable companies chosen by the TPO and segmental results (software development segment) alone of comparable company chosen by the TPO M/S.Megasoft Ltd., is taken for comparability, then the profit margin of the Assessee would be well within the (+) (-) 5% range of the arithmetic mean of the remaining comparable companies and therefore the price received by the Assessee would be considered as at Arms Length.
He prayed for a limited direction to the TPO on the lines set out above and determine the ALP. It also submitted that the other issues raised by the Assessee in the grounds of appeal need not be gone into.
25. We are of the view that the prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the Assessee is acceptable and accordingly, the TPO is directed to compute ALP after excluding the 8 comparable companies dealt with in this order. The TPO is also directed to take only the software development segment margin of the comparable company M/S.Megasoft Ltd., as was directed and held in the case of Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
IT(TP)A No. 1295/Bang/2010 Page 26 of 26
21. In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed.
Pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of October, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN )
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Encl: Annexure-I
Bangalore,
Dated, the 17th October, 2014.
/D S/
Copy to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
6. Guard file
By order
Assistant Registrar /
Senior Private Secretary
ITAT, Bangalore.