Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyd, ... vs Acit, Cirlce-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad on 5 September, 2019
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH "A", HYDERABAD
BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Medpluxes India Pvt. Ltd., vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-
Hyderabad. tax, Circle - 16(2),
Hyderabad.
PAN - AAECM7007N
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Aliasger Rampurwala &
Sri Abhiroop Bhargav
Revenue by : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Date of hearing : 22-07-2019
Date of pronouncement : 05-09-2019
O RDE R
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order passed u/s 143(3) rws 92CA(3) rws 144C(53) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), dated 28/01/2016, for the AY 2011-12.
2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee company, engaged in the business of software development, filed its return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 28/09/2011 admitting total income of Rs. Nil and book profits of Rs. 66,08,535/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1). . In response to the said notices, the AR of the assessee furnished the information called for.
2 ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
2.1 After verification of the information, the AO referred the matter to TPO u/s 92CA of the Act, for determination of arm's length price in respect of international transaction reported by the assessee for the AY 2011-12.
3. International transactions:
AE Nature of transaction Amount (Rs.) GE Healthcare Receipt for provision 49,007,274 of software development services GE Healthcare Receipt for provision 8,418,000 of IT enabled services 3.1 Examination of TP study conducted by assessee:
The assessee has carried out the economic analysis and has summarized it as under:
Nature of Amount MAM PLI Margin Margin of
international (Rs.) of comparables
transaction taxpayer (%)
(%)
Contract 49,007,274 TNMM OP/TC 10.19% 13.08%
software
development
services
IT enabled 8,418,000 TNMM OP/TC 10.19% 13.42%
services
3.2 Financial analysis of the assessee:
As per the audited statement of a ccounts, the financials of the assessee for the AY 2011-12 are as under:
For Software development segment:
Operating revenue Rs. 49007274
Operating Cost Rs. 44762984
Operating Profit Rs. 4244290
OP/TC 8.66%
OP/Sales(PLI) 9.48%
3
ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016
Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
For IT enabled services segment:
Operating revenue Rs. 8418000
Operating Cost Rs. 7688957
Operating Profit Rs. 729043
OP/TC 8.66%
OP/Sales(PLI) 9.48%
3.3 On going through the TP document, the TPO observed that some of the filters applied by the assessee are not the filter which the TPO has been usually applying in software cases and ITES cases , consequently, resulted in selection of inappropriate comparables.
TPO, therefore, rejected the TP document and an independent analysis was made by aggregating all the transactions under TNMM.
3.4 As regards the software development services, the TPO rejected the comparables selected by the assessee and he selected the following comparables, which included 3 common companies identified by the assessee:
S.No. Name of company OP/TC
(Pre WC Adj)
%
1 Acropetal Technologies 34.59
Ltd. (Seg.)
2 Akshay Software 0.85
Technologies Ltd.
3 CTIL Ltd. 9.73
4 Evoke Technologies Ltd. 8.33
5 e-Zest Solutions 38.03
6 ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. 25.36
7 Igate Global Solutions Ltd. 24.58
8 Kals Information Systems 10.35
Ltd. (seg.)
9 Larsen & Toubro Infotech 18.08
Ltd.
10 Mindtree Ltd. 11.91
11 Persistent Systems & 21.51
Solutions Ltd.
12 Persistent Systems Ltd. 26.76
13 RS Software (India) Ltd. 16.35
14 Sankhya Infotech Ltd. 17.64
15 Sasken Communication 26.99
4
ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016
Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
Technologies Ltd.
16 Tata Elxi Ltd. 13.77
17 Zylog Systems Ltd. 26.21
Arithmetic Mean 19.46
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Total operating income (OR) 4,90,07.274
Total operating cost (OC) 4,47,62,984
Operating profit (OP) 42,44,290
OP/OC (%) 9.48
3.5 Computation of arm's length price by TPO and the adjustment
made as under:
Arm's length mean margin on 19.46%
cost
Less: Working capital adjustment 2.53%
Adjusted mean margin of the A 16.93%
comparables
Operating Cost B Rs. 4,47,62,984
Arm's length price (116.93% of C=B*116.93% Rs. 5,23,41,257
operating cost)
Price received D Rs. 4,90,07,274
Shortfall being adjustment u/s E=C-D Rs. 33,34,083/-
92CA
Accordingly, for SDS segments, the arm's length margin was arriv ed at 16.93% and the arm's length price of international transactions was determined at Rs. 5,23,41,357/- and the shortfall is computed at Rs. 33,34,083.
3.6 IT Enables Services: The TPO rejected the comparables selected by the assessee and he selected the following comparables, which included 5 common companies identified by the assessee in the TP study:
S.No. Name of company OP/TC
(Pre WC Adj)
%
1 Accentia Technologies Ltd. 29.29
2 Acropetal Technologies 15.57
5
ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016
Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
Ltd. (Seg.) 3 Cosmic Global Ltd. 9.81 4 Crossdomain Solutions P. 25.04 Ltd.
5 e4e Healthcare 16.60 6 eClerx Service Ltd. 69.78 7 Informed Technologies Ltd. 9.24 8 Infosys BPO Ltd. 18.85 9 Jeevan Scientific 28.93 Technologies Ltd.
10 Jindal Intellicom Ltd. 13.54
11 Mastiff Tech P. Ltd. 21.78
12 Microgenetic Systems Ltd. -0.22
13 TCS E-serve Ltd. 76.28
Arithmetic Mean 25.73
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Total operating income (OR) 84,18,000
Total operating cost (OC) 76,88,957
Operating profit (OP) 7,29,043
OP/OC (%) 9.48
3.7 Computation of arm's length price by TPO and the adjustment
made as under:
Arm's length mean margin on 25.73%
cost
Less: Working capital adjustment 2.19%
Adjusted mean margin of the A 23.54%
comparables
Operating Cost B Rs. 76,88,957
Arm's length price (116.93% of C=B*123.54% Rs. 94,98,937
operating cost)
Price received D Rs. 84,18,000
Shortfall being adjustment u/s E=C-D Rs. 10,80,937
92CA
Accordingly, for ITES segments, the arm's length margin was arrived at 26.90% and the arm/s length price of international transactions was determined at Rs. 94,98,937/- and the shortfall was computed at Rs. 10,80,937/-
6 ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
3.8 Thus, a sum of Rs. 44,15,020/- is treated as adjustment u/s 92C(3) of the IT Act.
4. Aggrieved by the order of TPO, the assessee raised objections before the DRP.
5. As regards the software development services, the DRP retained the following comparables , out of the 17 comparables selected by the TPO:
S.No. Name of company OP/TC
1 Persistent Systems & 21.51
Solutions Ltd.
2 CTIL Ltd. 9.73
3 Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 8.33
4 Persistent Systems Ltd. 26.76
5 Sasken Communication 26.99
Technologies Ltd.
Arithmetic Mean 18.66
Less: Working capital 2.57
adjustment
Adjusted Arm's length margin 16.09
5.1 Consequent to the order of DRP, the AO computed adjustment of Rs. 29,58,074/- towards international transaction of provision of software development services.
5.2 As regards IT enables services, the DRP retained the following comparables, out of the 13 comparables selected by the TPO:
S.No. Name of company OP/TC
(Pre WC Adj)
%
1 e4e Healthcare 16.60
2 Jindal Intellicom Ltd. 13.54
3 Crossdomain Solutions Pvt. 25.04
Ltd.
4 Mastiff Tech Pvt. Ltd. 21.78
Arithmetic Mean 19.24
Less: Working capital 2.53
adjustment
Adjusted Arm's length 16.71
7
ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016
Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
margin Consequent to the above, the AO computed adjustment of Rs. 5,55,782/- towards international transaction of provision of IT enabled services.
5.3 Thus, the AO vide final assessment order dated 28 th January, 2016, computed total TP adjustment to be at Rs. 3 5,13,856/-, against which, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal:
" Transfer Pricing Matters
1. That the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad Assessing Officer ("AO") pursuant to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("learned DRP" or "learned Panel") under section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), also read with the order passed by the learned Joint Commissioner of Income -tax (Transfer Pricing, Hyderabad) ("learned Transfer Pricing Officer" or "learned TPO") under section 92CA of the Act, is erroneous on facts and bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
2. That the learned AO/ DRP erred both in facts and in law in making an adjustment of INR 29,58,074/ - to transfer price (TP') in the international transaction relating to software development services ('SWD') segment and an adjustment of INR 5,55,782/ - to transfer price in the international transaction relating to Information Technology enabled services ("ITES") segment of the Appellant. Consequently, the learned AO/learned DRP has erred in considering the total TP adjustment of INR 35,13,856/ - as addition to the income returned by the Appellant.
3. That the learned AO/ DRP erred in upholding the rejection of the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of the SWD and ITES segments of the Appellant invoking the provisions of section 92C(3) of the Act and contending that the information or data used in the computation of the arm's length price is not reliable or correct.
4. That the learned AO/ DRP erred both in facts and in law in holding that the international transactions in the SWD segment and in the ITES segments of the Appellant does not satisfy the 8 ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016 Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
arm's length principle envisaged under the Act and in doing has so grossly erred in:
a) Upholding the determination of the arm 's length margin / price using financial year (FY') 2010-2011 (not following the use of multiple year data as prescribed under Rule 10B(4) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") data and considering additional comparables at the time of assessment pro ceedings, the data pertaining to which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the Transfer Pricing Documentation ("TP Documentation") requirements.
b) Disregarding the application of multiple year/prior year data as used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that current year (i.e. FY 2010 -11) data for comparable companies should be used;
c) Upholding the non-acceptance of the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules, and upholding conducting a fresh economic analysis for the determination of the arm's length price in connection with the impugned international transactions by the learned TPO and in holding that the Appellant's international transaction in the SWD segment and in the ITES segment is not at arm's length.
d) Upholding the rejection of comparability analysis carried out by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis for the SWD a nd ITES segments of the Appellant based on the application of additional filters in determining the arm's length price.
e) Upholding the acceptance of companies that fail the parameters / tests of comparability analysis while performing the comparability analysis and arriving at the final set of comparables in the TP order with respect to the Appellant's SWD and ITES segments.
f) Upholding the action of the learned TPO in rejecting companies which pass the test of comparability and are functionally comparable to the Appellant in relation to the SWD and ITES segments.
g) Rejecting certain companies which otherwise pass the test of comparability and are functionally comparable to the Appellant in respect of the SWD and ITES segments and were also not particularly disputed by the Appellant.
h) Upholding the learned TPO's approach of disregarding certain filters as applied by the Appellant in selection of the 9 ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016 Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
comparable at the time of transfer pricing documentation and for the determination of comparables wh ile conducting the search for the SWD and ITES segments without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.
i) Arbitrary adoption of certain filters for the determination of com parables while conducting the search for the SWD and ITES segments.
j) Considering certain expenses/income as non -operating in nature while computing the mark -up on cost ('Operating Profit/Total cost' or ('OP/TC') of certain companies while performing the comparability analysis in relation to the SWD and ITES segments and in doing so the learned AO/ DRP have failed to provide any cogent reason to substantiate their findings.
k) Considering certain expenses/income as operating in nature while computing the mark-up on cost ('Operating Profit/Total cost' or ('OP /TC') of certain companies while performing the comparability analysis in relation to the SWD and IT ES segments and in doing so the learned AO/ DRP ha ve failed to provide any cogent reason to substantiate their findings.
l) Computation of operating mark-up on cost (OP /TC) for certain companies while performing the comparability analysis in relation to the SWD and ITES segments.
m) Computing the working capital adjustments of certain companies while performing the comparability analysis in relation to the SWD and ITES segments.
5. That the learned AO / DRP erred both in facts and in law in ignoring the limited risk nature of the services provided by t he Appellant as detailed in the TP documentation and in upholding the conclusion of the learned TPO that no adjustment on account of risk differential is required while determining the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions in the SWD and ITES segments of the Appellant.
6. That the learned AO erred in charging interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.
All the aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify, amplify or withdraw any or all the above grounds of objection, or add any further grounds, before or at the time of hearing. "
10 ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
6. Before us, ld. AR of the assessee sub mitted that even though specific grounds were not raised by the assessee with regard to exclusion of two comparables in software development services i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., and Sasken Communication Technology Ltd. and with regard to ITES Segment, he wants exclusion of Crossdomain Solutions Pvt. Ltd., he requested the Bench to adjudicate on these issues only. In this regard, he filed written submissions.
6.1 As regards exclusion of Persistent Systems Ltd., in software development services, it was stated as under:
"Functionally different:
The annual report of the company indicates the following: The company specializes in software product development services and provides end to end software development services to IT product companies.
The company is predominantly engaged in Outsourced Product Software Development Services and offers complete product life cycle services.
The company is building. IP portfolio which includes Cloud computing, BI & Analytics, Collaboration and Mobility . Revenue of Co. is both from software services as well as products and no bifurcation of income is given . The company has derived revenues from provision of software services as well as products; However, no segmental details are available in the annual report for the year under consideration. Company acquired OPD Business of Infospectrum India Pvt. Ltd. during year.
The turnover of Persistent Systems for FY 2010 -11 is Rs. 610.12 crores which is 13 times the turnover of Appellant Revenue Recognition:
Revenue from licencing of products is recognised on delivery of products Revenue from royalty is recognised on sale of products in accordance with the terms of the relevant agreements.11 ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016
Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
Revenue from maintenance contracts are recognised on a pro - rata basis over the period of the contract as and when services are rendered.
Outsourced Product Development:
The Company is engaged in outsourced product development (OPD') which is different from software development services. It has been recognized and awarded as a leading global outsourced product development vendor. Further, the Company in its financial statement for FY 2009 -10, gave a broad understanding of its business of OPD whereby it st ated that its different from IT Services. "
6.2 Ld. AR relied on the following decisions where Persistent Systems was excluded based on functionality:
• Conexant Systems (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2018) 91 taxmann.com 308 (Hyd)] (AY 2011-12) - Para no. 6.1 and 9 on page 3 and 4 • Symantec Software & Services India (P) Ltd. [(2017) 79 taxmann.com 208 (Chennai)] (AY 2011 -12) - Para 10 Page 8 & 9 • Saxo India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT - AY 2011-12 [(2016) 176 TTJ 540 (Del)] (AY 2011-12) - Para 14 Page 15 • Orange Business Services India Solutions (P) Ltd. - AY 2011- 12 - [(2016) 71 taxrnann.corn 206 (Del)] - Para 5.3 to 5.5 Page 10 6.3 As regards exclusion of comparable company of Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd, in SDS, it was stated as under:
"It is Functionally different:
• As per Directors report, it is mentioned that as compared to the previous year, Software services, including Network Engineering Services, has gone down by 11.67%, contributing 89.7% to the revenues, while Software Products revenue contributed 10.3%.
• As per Profit and Loss Account, income is from sale of software services and products.
• As per Note 12 to abridged profit and loss account, breakup of revenue from software services and software products are given but no details as to the segment results are given.12 ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016
Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
• The turnover of Sasken for FY 2010 -11 is Rs. 394 crores, which is 8 times the turnover of the Appellant, which during FY 2010-11 was Rs. 47 crores."
6.4 Ld. AR relied on the following decisions where Sasken was excluded based on functionality:
• PCIT vs. Saxo India Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 682 of 2016] (Delhi HC) (AY 2011-12) Para no. 4 &5 • Conexant Systems (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [(2018) 91 taxmann.com 308 (Hyd)] (AY 2011-12) - Para no. 6.2 and 9 on page 3 and 4 • Symantec Software & Services India (P) Ltd. [(2017) 79 taxmann.com 208 (Chennai)] (AY 2011 -12) - Para 11 & 12 Page 9 & 10 • Saxo India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT - AY 2011-12 - [(2016) 176 TTJ 540 (Del] - Para 15 Page 16 6.5 As regards exclusion of comparable company i.e., Crossdoma in Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in IT Enabled Services, it was stated as under:
"Functionally different • Co. is engaged in rendering Business Process Management Service's and focuses on knowledge intense processes. • Co. thrives on Business Excellence and leverages models such as Six Sigma and Kaizen along with IT which are high end services.
• The service offering of cross domain include Knowledge Service Outsourcing in Insurance, Healthcare, HR and Accounting domains. The company also offers business Excellence, Market Research and Data Analytics and IT services.
Decisions where Cross Domain was exclude d based on functionality:
6.6 Ld. AR relied on the following decisions where Crossdomain Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was excluded based on functionality:
• S & P Capital IQ (India) (P) Ltd. [(2016) 72 taxmann.com 326 (Hyd)] (AY 201112) - Para 14 Page 14 & 15 • Hyundai Motors India Engineering (P) Ltd. [(2015) 152 lTD 112 (Hyd)] (AY 2008-09) - Para 7.1 Page 10 13 ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016 Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
• Market Tools Research (P) Ltd. [(2014) 148 ITD 631 (Hyd)] (AY 2008-09) - Para 11 & 12 Page 9 • Symphony Marketing Solutions India (P) Ltd. [(2013) 27 ITR(T) 753 (Bang)] (AY 2008-09) - Para 18 & 19 Page 11 • Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd. [(2016) 68 taxmann.com 273 (Pune)] (AY 2009-10) - Para 15 to 17 Page 9 to 11 • Vertex Customer Services India (P) Ltd. [(2016) 69 taxmann.com 301 (Del)] (AY 2009-10) - Para 24 Page 11 • BNY Mellon International Operations (India) P. Ltd. [(2015) 173 TTJ 354 (Pune)] (AY 2009-10) - Para 15 Page 8
7. Ld. DR, on the other hand, brought to our notice page 103 & 107 of appeal papers i.e. TPO's order, in which, ld. DR appr eciated the findings of the TPO relating to Persistent Systems. In this connection, he referred to para 21 of the case law, i.e., Advice America Software Development Center (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 94 Taxmann.com 179 (Bengaluru - Trib.). Further, he brought to our notice pages 261,293 & 294 of the paper book and submitted that there is no product developed by the Persistent Systems, therefore, it is only a software development company, which is comparable with the assessee company.
7.1 Similarly, with regard to Sasken, he submitted that it is dealing with telecom vertical and actually it is software development company and not into product and brought to notice page 404 of paper book.
7.2 With regard to ITES Segment, he brought to our notice page 125 of paper, as per which, Crossdomain is comparable company with the assessee company.
8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee on the decision in the case of Saxo India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT(supra), the Delhi Bench of Tribunal directed to exclude Persistent Systems Ltd. and Sasken Communications Technologies Ltd. from the list of comparables, by observing as under:
14 ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
"v) Persistent Systems Ltd.
14.1. The assessee objected to the inclusion of this company in the tally of comparables by arguing that it was functionally different and there was insufficient segmental information. The TPO negatived this contention and included the same in the final set of comparables. 14.2. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find from Profit & Loss Account of this company, a copy of which is placed at page 1534 of the paper book, that its income from 'Sale of software services and Products' is amounting to Rs.6101.27 millions. The TPO has himself observed that this company does have some products, but, product revenue is only 7.2% and, hence, this company is predominantly a software service provider. This discussion is contained in para 21.67 of the TPO's order. Even Schedule-11 to the Profit & Loss Account also shows 'Sale of software services and Products.' This shows that this company is engaged in both rendering software development services as well as sale of software products. Albeit the percentage of software products in the total revenue is less, as has been noted by the TPO, yet, we are inclined to take it as non- comparable because there is no precise information about the contribution made by such small sale of software products to the total profit of the company. As no segmental information is available in respect of this company and the figures have been adopted by the TPO at entity level, we, therefore, order for the exclusion of this company from the list of comparables.
vi) Sasken Communications Technologies Ltd.
15.1. The TPO included this company in the set of comparables despite the assessee's objection that it was functionally different and also had Product portfolio.
15.2. After considering the rival submissions, we find from page 58 of the TPO's order that he has recognized sale of software products to the tune of Rs.37 crore and odd. Though the break-up of revenue from software services and software products is available, but, the break-up of operating costs and net operating revenues from these two segments have not been given. It is further observed that the TPO has taken entity level figures for the purposes of making comparison. Since such entity level figures contain revenue from both software services and software products, as against the assessee only providing software services, we are disinclined to treat this company as comparable. The assessee's contention is accepted on this issue.
Following the said decision, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the said two companies from the list of comparables retained by the DRP in software development services.
15 ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
8.1 As the regards the exclusion of comparable company Crossdomain in IT Enables Services, the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of S&P Capital IQ (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), on which reliance placed by the ld. AR, directed to exclude the said from the list of comparables, by observing as under:
"We have keenly perused the annual report placed on record and business profile of the company. is also considered in earlier year in the case of Hyundai Motors India Engg. (P) Ltd. (supra). The relevant para of the order is as under: -
III. CROSSDOMAIN SOLUTIONS LTD.
This company was considered as a comparable and listed at SI.No.7 of the comparables chosen by the TPO. It is the stand of the assessee that this company is not functionally comparable. It is seen that the business profile of this company is re-engineered payroll service. This company is also engaged in the development of information systems. The review and business functions of Cross Domain is as follows: - "With a decade of experience in Payroll Outsourcing. Crossdomain. has created are engineered payroll service EFFIPAY - that processes and delivers accurate payroll to clients with headcount up to 1000 employees in just 4 hours*. With Effipay Lite and Effipay Lite Plus, our bouquet of services cover end to end payroll. retrials. reimbursement. tax proof verifications upto issue of Form 16 for employees of our clients across different industry verticals. Our processes are highly scalable and provide end to end payroll solutions to cli ents with headcount ranging from 5 to 65,000."
"Crossdomain's IT knowledge and domain competence has provided the edge to develop information systems to implement process innovation and continuously increase efficiency and turn-a round-time for business critical processes. As can be seen from the above, the business of Cross Domain ranges from high end KPO services, development of product suites and routine low end ITES service. However, there is no bifurcation available for such verticals of services. T herefore the assessee contends that Cross Domain cannot be compared to a routine ITES service provider.
III. I. We are of the view that in the absence of any reasons given to the contrary either by the TPO or the DRP for regarding this company as a comparable, this company should be excluded from the list of comparables, accepting the plea of the Assessee. Similar view was also taken in the case. of 16 ITA No. 411/Hyd/2016 Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
Symphony Marketing Solutions India (P.) Ltd. (supra) by the Bangalore Bench. We hold accordingly."
Following the said decision, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the said company from the list of comparables retained by the DRP in IT enabled services.
8.2 Accordingly, the AO/TPO is directed to recompute the arm's length price in both the above segments by excludin g the said companies from the list of comparable companies. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Pronounced in the open court on 5 th September, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 5th September, 2019.
kv Copy to:-
1) Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., C/o Medplexus India Pvt. Ltd., 4, Kadugodo Industrial Area, Whitefield, Bangalore - 560 067
2) ACIT, Circle - 16(2), Hyderabad.
3) DRP -1, Bengaluru
4) Pr. CIT - 4, Hyd.
5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad.
6) Guard File