Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the assessment order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the assessing officer for assessment year 2013-14 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

2. At the time of hearing, the Ld A.R pressed grounds numbered as 3(d), 3(f), 3(g) and 3(h). In ground no.3(d) also, the Ld A.R did not press contentions relating to comparable companies named ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd, R.S. Software (India) Ltd and CG-Vak Software IT(TP)A No.2675/Bang/2017 Autodesk India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Exports Ltd. Accordingly, all other grounds, except those are pressed, are dismissed as not pressed.

3. The grounds pressed by the Ld A.R related to the addition made by way of Transfer pricing adjustment. Under these grounds, the assessee seeks exclusion of three companies, viz., Persistent Systems Ltd; Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd and Mind Tree Ltd. The assessee also inclusion of two companies, viz., R Systems Ltd and Akshay Software Technologies Ltd., in the list of comparables.

4. The assessee herein is providing technical support services on behalf of M/s Autodesk Singapore to its Associated Enterprises. As per T.P documentation, it has provided various types of services to its Associated Enterprises. We are concerned herewith services rendered under the title "Technical Support Services" and "Research and Development Services". Both these services have been clubbed together as "Software Development Services" segment for bench marking. The turnover of the assessee under Software Development Services segment for the year under consideration was Rs.22.50 crores. The assessee adopted TNM method as most appropriate method and Operating Profit/Operating Cost as Profit level indicator (PLI). Both these bench marking aspects were accepted by the Transfer pricing officer (TPO).

IT(TP)A No.2675/Bang/2017 Autodesk India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Mark-up on Mark-up Total costs on Total Sl.No. Name of the Company (WC-unadj) costs (WC- 
                                                  (in %)            adj)
                                                                  (in %)
     1.      CG-VAK Software Exports Ltd.          20.54          18.03
     2.      ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd.            17.10.         11.01
     3.      Larsen and Toubro Infotech            26.06          23.57
             Ltd.
     4.      Mindtree Ltd. (seg.)                  18.19           16.67
     5.      Persistent Systems Ltd.               28.27           24.92
     6.      RS Software (India) Pvt. Ltd.         17.41           16.38
     7.      Tech Mahindra Ltd. (seg.)             18.72           16.09
                  AVERAGE MARK-UP                  20.90
                    Adjusted margin                                18.10

10. The Ld D.R submitted that the upper turnover filter should be applied across the board and should not be applied on selective basis.

11. We heard the parties on this issue. The question of application of upper turnover filter was examined by the co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case in AY 2005-06 and 2008-09 (referred supra). The said decision was followed by another co-ordinate bench in the case of Tavant Technologies India P Ltd (supra) with the following observations:-

IT(TP)A No.2675/Bang/2017 Autodesk India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore "14. As far as ground No.6.5 is concerned, the question boils down on application of turnover filter in choosing comparable companies. As far as excluding the companies on the basis of turnover is concerned, the issue has been settled in several decisions of the Tribunal and has been elaborately discussed by this Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in IT(TP)A No.540 & 541/Bang/2013, order dated 06.07.2018. The Tribunal in this decision after review of entire case laws on the subject, considered the question, whether companies having turnover more than 200 crores upto 500 crores has to be regarded as one category and those companies cannot be regarded as comparables with companies having turnover of less than 200 crores, the Tribunal held as follows:-