Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Ground No.2, relates to Transfer Pricing. Within this ground there are large number of sub grounds starting from 2.1 to 2.7. Even within these sub grounds, there are further divisions. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that he was pressing only grounds No.2.4 and 2.6.2, to ground No.2.6.5 among various grounds relating to Transfer Pricing. Accordingly all other grounds relating to Transfer Pricing are dismissed as not pressed.

3. Initiating his arguments in connection with ground 2.6.2, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that assessee was a low end provider of IT enabled service. As per ld. Authorised Representative, assessee as well as ld. TPO had followed TNMM method for bench marking the international transactions of the assessee with its Associated Enterprise. As per ld. Authorised Representative, ld. TPO had finally arrived at ten comparables company for bench marking purposes. Among these ten companies there were four company named Eclerx Services Ltd, Infosys BPO Ltd, Maple ESolutions Ltd and :- 3 -: ITA No.2031/Mds/2011 Mphasis Ltd. AS per the ld. Authorised Representative he was seeking exclusion of these four companies from the list of comparables. With regard to M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that it was into high end knowledge process outsourcing and not comparable to what assessee was doing. As per ld. Authorised Representative assessee was maintaining ScholarlyStats Platform and providing back office services to its customers named Macmillan India Ltd. Continuing his submission, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that services of the assessee were in the nature of subscriber fulfillment of clients engaged in publishing periodicals. Such services offered, as per the ld. Authorised Representative included processing subscriptions, maintaining and updating the database of subscribers and other related services. As per ld. Authorised Representative it was purely a back office processing and was in the nature of low end ITe/BPO services. ScholarlyStats services as per ld. Authorised Representative only meant collection and collation of usage report from various platforms and making such reports available to the customers on the portal. In so far as content development platform was concerned as per the ld. Authorised Representative there was no high end process work done by the assessee. As per ld. Authorised Representative, assessee being only a low level BPO, could not be compared with Ecelrx Services Ltd. For :- 4 -: ITA No.2031/Mds/2011 this reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ramp Green Solutions P. Ltd vs. CIT 377 ITR 533.

6. Arguing for exclusion of Mphasis Ltd, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the said company had a turnover of E1,103 Crores and was a industrial giant. According to him for the very same reason for which he was seeking exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd, Mphasis Ltd also would go out of the list of comparables.

7. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supporting the orders of the lower authorities submitted that assessee was not into low end knowledge process outsourcing. As per ld. Departmental Representative, the director's report of the assessee clearly pointed out the high end nature of its services. Thus according to him, Ecelrx Services Ltd could not be excluded from the list of comparables. Coming to Maple Esolutions Ltd, ld. Departmental :- 6 -: ITA No.2031/Mds/2011 Representative submitted that assessee had not raised any ground regarding fraudulent transactions of its directors while seeking exclusion of this company from the list of comparables before any of the lower authorities. As per ld. Departmental Representative even before the Tribunal there was no specific ground in this regard. In so far as Mphasis Ltd was concerned, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that here also assessee had not pleaded exclusion of the said company before any of the lower authorities citing its mammoth nature. As per ld. Departmental Representative no such ground has been raised by the assessee before this Tribunal also. Thus according to him, assessee was raising fresh grounds before this Tribunal which were not taken before lower authorities. In any case, as per ld. Departmental Representative higher growth rate or extreme high profit margin could not be a reason for exclusion. For this, reliance was placed on the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Akamal Technologies India (P) Ltd, (2016) 68 taxmann.com 371.

8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. What we notice is that assessee has filed a comparability analysis as the first page of its paper book volume 2. In this chart, assessee has sought exclusion of Ecelrx Services Ltd, ICRA Online Ltd, Infosys BPO Ltd, Maple Esolutions Ltd, :- 7 -: ITA No.2031/Mds/2011 Mphasis Ltd and Triton Corp. Ltd. However, arguments has been advanced by the ld. Authorised Representative only with regard to Ecelrx Services Ltd, Infosys BPO Ltd, Maple Esolutions Ltd and Mphasis Ltd. In other words, no arguments were advanced for exclusion of ICRA Online Ltd and Triton Corp. Ltd. Therefore, we are confining ourself to comparability of Ecelrx Services Ltd, Infosys BPO Ltd, Maple Esolutions Ltd and Mphasis Ltd argued by the ld. Authorised Representative.

13. Coming to Mphasis Ltd claim of the assessee is that it had very high turnover and was not a comparable to the assessee which was having turnover of E33.5 Crores. Here also assessee had not raised a specific ground before lower authorities or before us citing the mammoth nature of Mphasis Ltd as a reason for seeking its exclusion. We are of the opinion that this can also be looked by the ld. Assessing Officer/TPO. Assessee cannot be estopped from raising such issue for the first time before us by the virtue of the decision of Special Bench in the case of Quark Systems P. Ltd (supra). Accordingly, we remit the question of comparability of Mphasis Ltd also back to the ld. Assessing Officer/TPO for consideration afresh in accordance with law.