Tribunals
Summary and Review of Case Laws Decided by Income Tax Appellate Tribunals
Sunday, 13 March 2016 13:12

Section 144C - Transfer Pricing - Four comparables cannot be considered as too small a sample for Transfer Pricing study - Bangalore Tribunal Featured

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)
transfer Pricing - International transaction - section 144C transfer Pricing - International transaction - section 144C

Transfer Pricing - Section 144C - Minimum Number of Comparables

Even  after  exclusion  of Accentia Technologies  Ltd, along  with  the exclusion  of  four  comparable  companies  directed  by  DRP,  there  will  be four companies left in the list of comparables which, in our opinion, cannot be  considered  as  too  small  a  sample  for  an effective TP  study

Facts

1. Assessee  was  a  100%  export-oriented  unit (‘EOU’  in  short)  and  providing  ITE  services to  its  holding  company  in British Virgin Islands 

2. Revenue from such transactions came  to  Rs.52,47,44,085/-

3. Assessee  in  the  TP documentation   had   adopted   TNMM   for   justifying   the   price of its international  transactions  and  considered  nine  comparable companies  for this  purpose,   based  on  an  analysis  done  on  prowess  and  capitaline  data base.    As  per  the  Ld.  AR,  TPO  had  on  the  other  hand  applied filters  like RPT,  insignificant  ITES  segment,  absence  of  data  in  public  domain,  etc, and arrived at a list of ten comparables

4. TPO had allowed working capital adjustment of  0.23%  and  a  final  adjustment  of  Rs.54,46,46,045/-,  as  given  hereunder was recommended

5. Assessee moved  the  DRP  against  the  above recommendations of the TPO

6. DRP had considered the arguments    of    the    assessee    and    directed    exclusion    of   Acropetal Technologies  Ltd  (seg),  E-clerx  Services  Ltd,  ICRA  Online Ltd  (seg), Infosys  BPO  Ltd  and  Sundaram  Business  Services  Ltd,  from  the  list  of eleven  comparables. However,  according  to  him,  DRP  did  not  accept  the assessee’s contentions in so far as it related to Accentia Technologies Ltd. As  per  the  Ld.  AR  though  Accentia  Technologies  Ltd  was  a  part  of assessee’s own list of comparables in the TP study, it had before the TPO objected  and  sought exclusion

7. assessee  had  relied  on various  decisions  of  this  Tribunal  in  support.    However,  this  was  not considered  by  the  TPO.    Ld.  AR  pointed  out  that  similar exclusion  was sought  before  DRP  also,  but  with  no  result.  As  per  the  Ld.  AR,  AO  had thereafter concluded    the    assessment    considering    M/s.    Accentia Technologies as a good comparable

8. Tribunal Partly allowed the appeal in favour of the Assessee

Adjudication

Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal   referred   to   above,   we   direct   that   the   aforesaid   2 companies be excluded from the list of comparable companies for the  purpose  of  computing  arithmetic  mean  for  comparability purpose. The TPO is directed to give effect accordingly. Even  after  exclusion  of Accentia Technologies  Ltd,    along  with  the exclusion  of  four  comparable  companies  directed  by  DRP,  there  will  be four companies left in the list of comparables which, in our opinion, cannot be  considered  as  too  small  a  sample  for  an  effective  TP  study. In  the circumstances, we direct exclusion of Accentia Technologies Ltd also from the list of comparables

Cases referred to

CIT V/s. Agnity Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (219 Taxman 26)

Additional Info

Read 2983 times Last modified on Wednesday, 04 May 2016 12:07
Taxpundit

Founder & CEO with over 20 years of total professional experience spread across Internal Audit, IT Audit, Enterprise Risk Management, Financial statement audit & Business Finance Management.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/taxpundit | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Leave a comment

Thank you for reading! We welcome and appreciate your comments, but at the same time, make sure you are adding something valuable to this article. If you have any serious queries, suggestions or anything related to this article, feel free to share them, we really appreciate that.

If you want to give us any feedback or report any errors, you can email your concerns on taxpundit@taxpundit.org and we'll revert back soon.

Most Popular Case Summary

  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
load more hold SHIFT key to load all load all

Recommended Articles

 

Have you done Analysis of any Case? Tell Us About It.

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar