ADAPTEC (INDIA) PVT LTD v ACIT (ITA No.1758/Hyd/2012 dated 21/03/2014) – Hyderabad ITAT Background: The asseseee is engaged in the business of software design, development and testing in the areas of high performance storage solutions. The assessee renders software development services to its Associated Enterprise (AE) i.,e., Adaptec Inc, USA. The assessee is registered as 100% EOU under the STPI Scheme. The assessee being a captive service provider to its AE is remunerated on a cost plus mark up basis for the services provided. On the basis of FAR analysis, the assessee categorized it as a risk mitigated contract service provider and selected itself as the tested party. Transactions Net Margin Method (TNMM) was chosen as the most appropriate method for determining ALP. Operating profit/operating cost was selected as the profit hence Indicator (PLI). The assessee conducted search from the database to select comparable companies and finally selected 28 companies as comparables with weighted average arithmetic mean of 14.53%. As the assessee’s net margin from the provision of services to AE at 14.03% was within the arm’s length, no adjustment was made in the TP study. The TPO, though accepted TNMM as the most appropriate method and the PLIOP/OC, he nevertheless rejected the TP study of the assessee by observing that multiple year data was considered while selecting comparables and companies engaged in software development have been treated as comparables irrespective of the verticals/horizontals of software services which has made the comparability analysis defective and unreliable. TPO also applied certain additional filters, one of them being companies having turnover of less than 1 crore were rejected. The TPO finally selected 19 companies as comparables with average margin of 26.20% and after allowing working capital adjustments of 3.58% arrived at the adjusted arithmetic mean PLI of 22.62% and determined the ALP at Rs.19,48,41,447. The TPO treated the shortfall of Rs.1,82,73,532/- as the transfer pricing adjustments u/s 92CA of the Act.
Monthly Archives: March 2014
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO LTD, China v ADIT (ITA Nos.5253/Del/2011, 5254/Del/2011, 5255/Del/2011 & 5256/Del/2011 dated 21/03/2014) – Del ITAT Background: The assessee, which is a company incorporated in China, is engaged in the business of supplying non-terminal products, i.e., telecommunications network equipment. The assessee had not filed any return of income. During the course of survey undertaken at the office premises of Huawei India, several documents were found and statements of various senior executives were recorded. On the basis of the said documents and statements, the Assessing Officer arrived at the conclusion that the assessee was having Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and the income that has accrued to the assessee from the supply of telecommunications network equipment during the previous year is taxable in India. In view of the above, the AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In response to the notice under Section 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 30th July, 2009 disclosing total income of Rs 82,69,535.
Delhi ITAT ruling on factors considered for determining PE and taxability of software embedded in ...
Bharti Airtel Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee issued a corporate guarantee to Deutsche Bank on behalf of its associated enterprise, Bharti Airtel (Lanka), whereby it guaranteed repayment for working capital facility. The assessee claimed that since it had not incurred any cost on account of issue of such guarantee, and the guarantee was issued as a part of the shareholder activity, no transfer pricing adjustment could be made. However, the TPO held that as the AE had benefited, the ALP had to be computed on CUP method at a commission income of 2.68% plus a mark-up of 200 bp. This was upheld by the DRP by relying on the retrospective amendment to s. 92B which specifically included guarantees in the definition of “international transaction”. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD allowing the appeal:
Corporate guarantee is not an ‘international transaction’ subject to TP provisions – Del ITAT
Gulshan Malik v CIT (IT APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2014 dated 14.03.2014) – Delhi High Court Background: The assessee and his wife had booked an apartment vide an application dated 31.07.2004, by payment of a booking amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-on 3.08.2004 and consequently, it is claimed, acquired rights or interests in the same. The builder DLF issued a letter dated 6.08.2004 provisionally allotting the apartment and two parking spaces. A buyer’s agreement was executed on 4.11.2004 between DLF and the allottees. Per the payment schedule, a total payment of Rs. 87,12,500/- was made from 31.07.2004 to 03.08.2006 towards the purchase of the apartment. Following this, the Assessee entered into an agreement to sell dated 2.11.2007 to sell their booking rights/rights or interest in the apartment. In the computation of income, the assessee declared a long term capital gain of Rs. 31,35,740/- on the sale of booking rights/extinguishment of rights in the apartment (period between acquisition and sale of the booking rights in the apartment was claimed to be 39 months and 2 days). An exemption was claimed under Section 54 of the Act, 1961 as the same was invested in purchase of another apartment in June 2008.
Dt of agreement and not the dt of confirmation letter to be considered for computing ...
Maersk Global Centres (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) Transfer Pricing: Companies in ITES cannot be classified into low-end BPO services and high-end KPO services for comparability analysis but have to be classified based on the functions performed. Comparables with abnormal profit margins cannot be discarded per se but must be examined to determine whether the high margins are due to normal business conditions or not