Trilogy E-Business Software India vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
The assessee provided software research & development services to  its’ USA based AE and was remunerated on a ‘cost plus’ basis. The  assessee claimed that applying the TNMM and using operating profits to  cost as the Profit Level Indicator (“PLI”), its PLI of 9.98% was at arms  length. The TPO & DRP rejected the assessee’s claim and computed  the ALP at 24.35% and made an adjustment of Rs. 6.20 crores. The  Tribunal had to consider the following issues: (i) whether in selecting a  comparable, a turnover filter has to be adopted, (ii) whether companies  with abnormal margins can be regarded as comparable, (iii) whether a  filter can be applied to distinguish between companies earning revenue  from rendering “onsite services” as compared to those rendering  “offshore services” even though there is no functional difference  between the two activities& (iv) whether the TPO is confined to  information in public domain or he can collect information u/s 133(6).  HELD by the Tribunal:
(i) S. 92C & Rule 10B(2) clearly lay down the principle that the  turnover filter is an important criteria in choosing the comparables  because significant differences in size of the companies would impact  comparability even there is no functional difference in their  activities. Size matters in business because a big company would be in a  position to bargain the price and also attract more customers. It would  also have a broad base of skilled employees who are able to give better  output. A small company may not have these benefits and therefore, the  turnover also would come down reducing profit margin. As the assessee’s  turnover is Rs. 47 crores, only companies with a turnover between Rs. 1  to Rs. 200 crore should be considered for comparability (Quark Systems 38 SOT 207 (SB), Genesis Integrating Systems &OECD TP Guidelines, 2010, ICAI TP Guidelines followed);
(ii) U/s 92C & Rule 10B(2), there is no bar to considering  companies with either abnormal profits or abnormal losses as comparable  to the tested party, as long as they are functionally comparable. This  issue does not arise in the OECD guidelines and the US TP regulations  because they advocate the quartile method for determining ALP under  which companies that fall in the extreme quartiles get excluded and only  those that fall in the middle quartiles are reckoned for comparability.  Cases of either abnormal profits or losses (referred to as outliners) get automatically excluded. However, Indian regulations specifically  deviate from OECD guidelines and provide Arithmetic Mean method for  determining ALP. In the arithmetic mean method, all companies that are  in the sample are considered, without exception and the average of all  the companies is considered as the ALP. Hence, while the general rule  that companies with abnormal profits should be excluded may be in tune  with the OECD guidelines, it is not in tune with Indian TP regulations.  However, if there are specific reasons for abnormal profits or losses or other general reasons as to why they should not be regarded as  comparables, then they can be excluded for comparability. It is for the  Assessee to demonstrate existence of abnormal factors. On facts, as the  assessee has not shown any factors for abnormal profits, no comparable  can be excluded for that reason (contra view in Quark Systems & Sap Labs noted);
(iii) Though the functions performed by offshore service providers  and onsite service providers is the same, i.e. development of computer  software, under Rule 10B(2)(b) one has to have regard to the functions  performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and the  risks assumed by the respective parties to the transactions. The  “market conditions” are different for on-site and offshore work because  in onsite development of computer software, the assessee does not employ  assets or assume many risks. Even the per hour rate is different. The  fact that in TNMM it is only the margins in an uncontrolled transaction  that is tested does not mean that the fact that pricing will have an  effect on the margins obtained in a transaction can be ignored.  Companies which generate more than 75% of the export revenues from  onsite operations outside India are effectively companies working  outside India having their own geographical markets, cost of labour  etc., and also return commensurate with the economic conditions in those  countries. Thus assets and risk profile, pricing as well as prevailing  market conditions are different in predominantly onsite companies from  predominantly offshore companies like the assessee. Since, the entire  operations of the assessee took place offshore i.e. in India; it should  be compared with companies with major operations offshore, due to the  reason that the economics and profitability of onsite operations are  different from that of offshore business model;
(iv)  The TPO is entitled to collect information u/s 133(6) though if  it is sought to be used against the assessee, it must be furnished to  the assessee and his objections taken into account. If the assessee  seeks an opportunity to cross examine the party, that opportunity should  be provided so that he can rebut the stand of that particular company.  On facts, the assessee had not been able to show that the TPO had used  information u/s.133(6).
 






 
 Posts
Posts
 
