Benefit of Section 10A of the Act is Allowed on Enhanced Income Pursuant to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) Resolution
Outcome: In favor of Assessee
1. During the relevant year, the assessee has provided ITeS and Software Development Services (SWD) of INR 629,43,81,078 and INR 149,69,17,786 respectively for which a TP Adjustment to INR 154,56,23,611 towards ITeS and INR 22,98,32,484 towards SWD respectively was made by Ld. TPO.
2. As far as TP Adjustment towards ITeS services is concerned, during the pendency of the appeal before Ld. CIT (A), the assessee’s AE in USA went to the MAP resolution as per Article 27 of India-USA DTAA for determining the ALP of this transaction. As per resolution dated 28.10.2015, the export income of the assessee was enhanced by INR 31,05,17,297.
3. AO passed the order u/r 44H (4) of the Rules and denied to allow deduction u/s 10A of the Act on such enhanced income arrived at in the MAP. Ld. AO allowed the deduction u/s 10A of the Act only to the extent of INR 132,97,49,723 based on the assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the Act.
4. CIT (A) upholds the decision of Ld. AO and held that adjustment made as per MAP resolution is not disclosed in the books of accounts of the assessee and hence, cannot be allowed for deduction. Thus, aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the tribunal.
5. TPO rejected 14 out of 17 comparable companies chosen by the assessee and on his own chose 23 other comparable companies. Ld. TPO arrived at arithmetic mean of 24.13% of such 26 comparable companies as against the OPM of 16.11% of the Assessee and thereby made the upward adjustment of an amount INR 22,98,32,484.
6. CIT (A) upholds the TP Adjustments as made by Ld. TPO towards SWD services. Hence, aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the tribunal.
1. Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in not allowing deduction u/s 10A of the Act on the enhanced export income amounting to Rs. 31,05,17,297 determined as per MAP resolution between the Competent Authorities of India and USA and as accepted by the assessee.
2. Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in upholding the adjustment made by Ld. TPO despite the submission of the assessee that 14 out of 26 comparable companies as chosen by Ld. TPO for comparison purpose are not comparable to the assessee on account of functional dissimilarity, outsourcing of work, failing 25% employee-cost filter, ownership of intangibles, unavailability of segment break-up etc?
1. Hon’ble ITAT held that the taxpayer was to be allowed the benefit of section 10A with respect to the amount settled under the MAP.
Observations and findings of Hon’ble ITAT are:
2. As per First proviso to section 92C(4) of the Act, deduction u/s 10A will not be allowed in respect of amount of income by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced after computation of income u/s. 92C(4) of the Act by TPO which in turn is based on the Arm’s Length Price computed by Ld. AO pursuant to order of TPO passed u/s.92CA(3) of the Act.
3. The addition on account of determination of ALP can be in a different manner
4. The proviso to section 92CA(4) of the Act will apply only to adjustment to transfer pricing made by the AO which is enumerated in para 4 (bullet 2) above and not to any other modes of determination of ALP.
5. The purpose for which the first proviso of section 92C(4) of the Act was enacted is given in the CBDT Circular No. 14/2001 dated 09.1.2001 as follows:-
“55.12 The first proviso to section 92C(4) recognizes the commercial reality that even when a transfer pricing adjustment is made under that sub-section, the amount represented by the adjustment would not actually have been received in India or would have actually gone out of the country. Therefore, it has been provided that no deductions u/s 10A or 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed in respect of the amount of adjustment.”
6. However, in the present case the Assessee had to increase its taxable income and the same was to be subsequently invoiced and realized and thereby there was inflow of foreign exchange in India which was the condition precedent in MAP resolution.
7. Further, it is also undisputed that the assessee has received foreign exchange in respect of the sum agreed under the MAP and has duly accounted for in its books of account in AY 2016-17. However, the said income was excluded in the computation of total income in AY 2016- 17. On identical facts, Pune Tribunal in the case of Dar Al Handasah Consultants (Shair & Partners) India Private Limited took the view that deduction u/s. 10A has to be allowed in the assessment year in which the international transaction took place.
8. This tribunal strongly placed reliance in the case of:
|S. N.||Company Name||Rejection reasons given by Hon’ble ITAT|
|1.||Accel Transmatic Ltd||
|2.||Avani Cimcon Ltd||
|3.||Celestial Labs Ltd||
|4.||Kals Information Systems Ltd||
|5.||Ishir Infotech Ltd||
|6.||Lucid Software Ltd||
|8.||Infosys Technologies Limited||
|9.||Tata Elxsi Ltd. (Seg.)||
|11.||E-Zest Solutions Ltd||
|12.||Persistent Systems Ltd||
|13.||Third ware Solutions Ltd||
|14.||Helios & Matheson||