Prism Networks Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the DRP has not considered the plea of assessee in proper perspective. The fact that the TPO rejected the TP Study of the Assessee cannot be the basis not to consider the claim of the Assessee for inclusion of comparable companies. The DRP has not adjudicated the question of inclusion of these companies as comparable companies. The fact that these companies do not figure in the search matrix of the TPO is not and cannot be a ground not to consider inclusion of these companies as comparable companies. Since the DRP has failed to do so, the Hon’ble Tribunal directed to AO/TPO for fresh consideration in light of information available in Public Domain.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2021 of National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer, “AO” in short) passed u/s.143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in relation to AY 2016-2017.
2. The Assessee in engaged in the business of provision of Software Development Seryices (SWD services), to its wholly owned holding company. In terms of the provisions of Sec.92-A of the Act, the Assessee and its ‘wholly owned holding company were Associated Enterprises (“AEs”). In terms of Sec.92B(l) of the Act, the transaction of providing SWD Services was an “international transaction” i.e., a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are nonresidents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to any one or more of such enterprises. In terms of Sec.92(1) of the Act, the any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price. In this appeal by the Assessee, the dispute is with regard to determination of Arms’ Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transaction of rendering SWD services to the AE.
3. As far as the provision of Software Development services are concerned, the Assessee filed a Transfer Pricing Study (TP Study) to justify the price paid in the international Transaction as at ALP by adopting the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) of determining ALP. The Assessee selected Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for the purpose of comparison of the Assessee’s profit margin with that of the comparable companies. The OP/OC of the Assessee was arrived at 12.69% by the Assessee in its TP study. The operating income was Rs.8,13,02,520/- and the Operating Cost was Rs.7,21,45,894/-. The Operating profit operating income — Operating cost was Rs.91,56,262/-. Thus the OP/TC wed at 12.69%. The Assessee chose companies who are engaged in providing similar services such as the Assessee. The Assessee identified 7 companies whose average arithmetic mean of profit margin was comparable with the Operating margin of the Assessee. The Assessee therefore claimed that the price it charged in the international transaction should be considered as at Arm’s Length.
4. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to whom the determination of ALP was referred to by the AO, accepted TNMIVI as the MAM and also used the same PLI for comparison i.e., OP/OC. He also selected comparable companies from database. The TPO accepted some companies chosen by the Assessee as comparable companies. The TPO on his own identified some other companies as comparable with the Assessee company and arrived at a set of 13 comparable companies. The PLI was reworked by the TPO at 24.83%. The TPO worked out the average arithmetic mean of their profit margins of the 13 comparable companies as follows:
