ExxonMobil Services And Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Routine BPO Comparable Excluded for Functional Difference Reason; Different Year Comparable Considered on Quarterly Data Basis; KPO Profile and Lack of Segmental Data Reason for Comparable Exclusion; Consistency Reason Supports Inclusion of Earlier Accepted Company; Different Accounting Year Alone Not Valid Reason to Reject Comparable; Quarterly Results Must Be Examined for Inclusion; No Scientific Working Capital Analysis Reason for Rejection Set Aside; Fresh Computation Directed Under Rule 10B; Foreign Currency Invoice Reason Requires LIBOR Benchmark; SBI PLR Not Justified for Delayed Receivable Interest; Prior Acceptance in Assessee’s Own Case Reason for Including Comparable Despite Absence from TPO Search Matrix; Section 43B Disallowance Based on Alleged Reporting Mismatch Reason Restored for Verification of Actual Disclosure and Payment; Return Filed Within Extended Due Date Reason Bars Section 234A Interest; No Self-Assessment Tax Also Relevant; Interest Under Section 234C Must Be Computed on Returned Income Reason; Assessment-Based Calculation Rejected
The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerned transfer pricing and corporate tax issues arising from the assessment order for AY 2021–22. The assessee, engaged in providing back-office support services to its associated enterprises on a cost-plus basis, benchmarked its BPO segment under TNMM using OP/OC as PLI. While the assessee selected 17 comparables, the Transfer Pricing Officer accepted only three and introduced additional comparables, resulting in an average margin of 21.84% and a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 12.36 crore.
