Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In fact, this issue of whether the assessee is a KPO/ITeS/high end BPO was examined by the Tribunal in the earlier years in the case of assessee. We may reproduce some of the relevant portions of those orders on this aspect, more particularly, from the orders for A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15. Firstly, we are reproducing the relevant portion i.e., Paras 2.1 and Paras 9.6 to 9.11 (on pages 815 and 821 to 825 placed in paper book) in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 in "2.1. Assessee is involved in providing support services in connection with CAE/CAD modeling and iterative simulation. It receives the basic design from its group company with respect to CAD modeling and makes a 3D CAD modeling data of vehicle components using CAD software tools. Assessee is a routing support service provider and it assumes less than normal risk associated with carrying out such business. The International transactions reported by assessee are as under :

Following the decision of the coordinate bench as above, we exclude this company as comparable.

9. Similarly, we are reproducing the relevant portion i.e., Paras 9 and 10 at page 883 and Para 32 at page 894 of the paper book in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No.2303/Hyd/2018 which reads as under :

"9. The ld Counsel for the assessee Shri H Srinivasulu submitted that the assessee is the 100% captive service provider to its AEs in R&D support services of automobile parts. He submitted that the basic designs come from the AE while the assessee uses data base of AE located outside India and also the instructions of work which come from AE to render the services of CAD & CAE. He submitted that the assessee uses CAD and CAE software to render the support services and send it back to AE and there is no patenting of intellectual property in India. Therefore, according to him, the assessee is providing only ITeS services (BPO). He further led us to the AE agreement, wherein it is seen that no software development services are provided nor were any research services provided by the assessee and the assessee is also not rendering all the services specified in the agreement, but only CAE and CAE testing support services are provided. He submitted that the assessee company was established in the year 2007 in India and from the AY 2008-09 onwards, the assessee has been held to be an ITeS (BPO) company till AY 2010-11 and only in the AYs 2011-12 and 2012- 13, the ITAT has held this company to be comparable to E-Clerx Ltd which is a KPO. He submitted that again in the AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 the assessee has been held as ITeS by the TPO as well as the DRP. Therefore, he submitted that it is necessary to go into the actual nature of work carried on by the assessee to hold whether the assessee is an ITeS company or a KPO. He submitted that the assessee's business falls within the ambit of Rule 10TA(e) of the Act and not under 10TA (g) of the Rules. He tried to distinguish the ITeS service from KPO service by submitting that the KPO requires Domain Expertise, Advance Analytical Skills, Technical Skill, in depth knowledge, judgment and interpretation. He submitted that for rendering these services, the manpower plays a key role. He submitted that in the automobile industry, persons having 10 years and above experience with technical qualifications come within the category of technical skill, whereas majority of the assessees' manpower i.e. the 80% are B.Tech or fresh graduates while employees with masters degree were 7% and Master (ME/M.Tech.) degree were 8% and others are only 2%. Thus, he submitted that the assessees manpower does not have the advance analytical and technical skill which is required to render KPO services. He submitted that in the case of the assessee, the basic design and database comes from AE and fresh graduates of the assessee renders only the support services. He referred to Rule 10TA(g) of the I.T. Rules which refers to "engineering services and design services" as a KPO service, to impress upon us that the assessee is not rendering any of such services and therefore, it cannot be considered as a KPO. He also led us to page 972 of the Paper Book being the workflow chart to demonstrate that the assessee is rendering the entire work on the instructions of the AEs. He also led us through the research agreement at pages 967 to 971 of the Paper Book, wherein the assessee is required to provide the computer aided design engineering services. He submitted that the assessee has not rendered the project support services, software development services and research services which are mentioned at page 969 of the Paper Book. He also drew our attention to page 540 of the Paper Book, wherein in its TP study, the assessee has stated that it is primarily involved in advance R&D support services focused on project design engineering and quality enhancement and provides all back end operations like computer aided design and computer aided engineering. He also drew our attention to the profile of the company at page 544 of the Paper Book. As regards the functions performed by the assessee company to its AE, he submitted that the assessee is rendering only recruitment of technical manpower, rendering and delivering of CAD/CAE engineering services and professional and quality review of services. He also submitted that the assessee is taking risk of only foreign exchange, manpower and local and statutory risk. Therefore, all the risks and major functions are borne by the AE. He submitted that both the TPO as well as the DRP have considered the assessee as an ITeS company only and therefore, it cannot now be held to be a KPO. He also drew our attention to page 946 of the paper book which is "notes forming part of the financial statements for the year ending March, 2014" wherein the corporate information is given and it is stated that the company located in Hyderabad, was primarily engaged in research & development focussed design engineering and quality enhancement and provides back end operations like computer aided engineering and computer aided design etc. He submitted that this sentence is not included in inter-company agreement with AE. He has also drawn our attention to the ITAT orders in the assessee's own case for the earlier AYs wherein for the AY 2008- 09 to 2010-11, the assessee has been held to be ITeS and E-Clerx Ltd has been directed to be excluded on account of functional dissimilarity and an extra ordinary event. He submitted that only for the AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 the assessee has been held to be comparable with E-Clerx Ltd which is a KPO. He therefore, tried to distinguish the said decisions from the facts of the case for the AY before us. As far as the comparability of E-Clerx Ltd is concerned, he submitted that financials of E-Clerx Ltd are not reliable as segmental details are not available. He submitted that E Clerx Ltd is rendering both ITeS and KPO services and the TPO has taken the entity level results as no segmental results are available. He also submitted that the business model of the E Clerx Ltd is different as it outsources most of its work. Therefore, he sought exclusion of this company from the final list of comparables.