Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

the assessee is at 13.04%, the same was found to be at arm's length. Consequently, the CIT(A) has deleted the adjustment of ` 1,19,31,647/- on this account. 4 Before us, the ld CIT(DR) Shri Ajit Kumar Jain has submitted that the assessee is engaged in the activity of marketing services to its Associated Enterprises (AE) in India and outside India. The assessee provides application research and technical services to its various AEs in the Asia-Pacific Region at the R&D centre at Bangalore. The ld DR has pointed out that the assessee has used six comparables and three years data were used for comparables and weighted mean was computed at 12.96%. He has referred the details of international transactions and benchmark to show that the assessee has used two years data for its own margin and multiple years' data of the comparables for computing the weighted average margins of the comparables. Whereas the TPO used single year data as provided under the law. The ld DR has referred the order of the TPO and submitted that the TPO has rejected two comparables namely Biotech Consortium India Ltd and ADS Diagnostics for the reasons that these companies are persistently making losses and therefore, the TPO has rightly rejected these two companies as comparables. Though the CIT(A) has not disturbed the order of the TPO so far as it relates to taking only current year data; however, the CIT(A) has further eliminated the comparables on the ground that two of the companies are having high margin. 4.1 The ld DR has referred para 7.6 of the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the CIT(A) has proceeded on the analogy that if the outliers were to be eliminated, it should be done in a statistical manner, such as by taking the inter-quartile range of the comparables set. The ld DR has submitted that this approach and concept of inter-quartile range, does not find place in the Indian law; but this aspect is in the US law because under the provisions of I T Act, when a mean of the comparable price/ ITA No 4389/M/2010 .

5.2 On appeal, the CIT(A), though accepted the action of the TPO so far as taking single year i.e. current year data instead of multiyear data for the purpose of calculated the operating profit rate of comparables; however, the CIT(A) has held that when the loss making comparables are rejected, then on the same analogy, the high margin comparable companies are also be eliminated. The CIT(A) had fortified this view by the concept of taking the inter-quartile range of comparable set. Accordingly, the CIT(A) has recomputed the margin of the comparables after excluding the companies i.e. Alphageo (i)Ltd and Vimta Labs Ltd. Thus, the CIT(A) has arrived at the revised mean margin at 14.79% by taking into consideration only two comparables namely Tata Projects Ltd and N G Industries Ltd. 5.3 As regards the issue of taking the current year data instead of multi year data by the assessee, the same is settled at the level of the CIT(A) because the assessee has not challenged the order of the CIT(A) on this issue.

Further, India TP Rules specifically deviate from OECD guidelines in this aspect and specify the Arithmetic Mean for determining ALP. In the Quartile Method, the companies that fall in the extreme quartiles get excluded and only those that fall in the middle quartile are retained for comparability thereby automatically eliminating outliners whereas in the Arithmetic Mean Method all companies that are in the sample are considered, without exception, and the average of all the companies are considered as ALP. Therefore as a general rule that companies with abnormal profits should be excluded may be in line with the principles enumerated in the OECD guidelines, but cannot be said to be in tune with Indian TP regulations. The assessee has not been able to establish or demonstrate with any evidence any reason to support the proposition that the profit of the comparable company was abnormally high. It must not be overlooked that high profits reflect better business sense and practices also. The net Arithmetic Mean margin of 36.49% was arrived at after taking into account both 63.27% and also 3.44% which is the lowest in the relevant ITES industry. We also find from the material on record that this company has a clearly demarcated call centre segment and segmental results are available in the audited financial statements of the company. We, therefore, see no reason why the M/s. Ultra Marine Pigments Ltd should not be considered as a comparable and therefore reject the assessee's grounds seeking its exclusion. This company is, therefore, directed to be retained as a comparable for the assessee for Assessment Year 2004-05. 6.5 Though, the ld AR of the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal dated 23.11.2012 in the case of Capital IQ Information Systems (I)Ltd in ITA No.1961/Hyd/2011; however, in the said case the ITA No 4389/M/2010 .

7 In view of the above discussions as well as the decisions of this Tribunal on the point of exclusion of the comparables due to high profit margin or loss, we find that the action of the TPO excluding the two comparables on the ground that these companies are persistent loss making concluded merely on the basis of two years data and without going into the details whether the loss is because of factors as prescribed under Rule 10B(2) r.w. sub rule (3) is not justified. 7.1 Similarly, the elimination of two more comparables by the CIT(A) on the ground of high profit making companies is also not inconformity with the provisions of law. Further, the concept of inter-quartile range of the comparables set is not recognized in the Indian Income Tax Law because when mean average of the comparables is taken, then it neutralized the effects of all the extreme cases. Accordingly, the order of the TPO/AO as well as the CIT(A) are not sustainable and hence, set aside. We, therefore, remit the issue to the record of the Assessing Officer for examination of the same and decide the issue afresh as per law. 8 Regarding back office support services, the assessee has shown the margin at 13.59% by using two years data. The assessee has used TNMM as most appropriate ITA No 4389/M/2010 .