The argument that the ITES/BPO industry has several segments starting from low end segment such ‘call centre’, ‘customer care’ to high end segments such as ‘KPO’, ‘content development’ etc. in which there is wide variation in the billing rates and that high end services are not comparable to the low end services is not acceptable because under Rule 10B(2) the comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction has to be judged with the reference to the services provided, functions performed, asset employed and risk assumed. All companies which are in the ITES segment are providing similar services and difference is in the internal working which is reflected through difference in qualifications and skills of the employees. The difference in skill/ qualification of the employees and their payment structure and the difference in billing rate does not affect the comparability in any significant manner under TNMM

There is a difference between a “speculative transaction” and a “hedging transaction”. S. 43(5) defines a “speculative transaction” to mean a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrips. Proviso (a) to s. 43(5) refers to a “hedging transaction” as a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchandising business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured by him or merchandise sold by him. In order for a transaction to be a “hedging transaction”, the commodity dealt in should be the same. If the subject matter of the transaction is different, it cannot be termed a hedging transaction. Also, the merchandise in respect of which the forward transactions have been entered into by the assessee must have a direct connection with the goods sold by him. On facts, as the assessee was not dealing in Foreign Exchange, the forward transactions entered into by it cannot be held to be hedging transactions. As the assessee is dealing in diamonds, only the forward contracts entered into for diamonds would be covered by Proviso (a) to s. 43(5). Consequently, the loss suffered by the assessee is a speculative loss

The condition precedent for the AO to invoke Rule 8D is that he first must examine the accounts of assessee and then record by giving cogent reasons why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee’s claim. In the absence of an examination of accounts and the recording of satisfaction, Rule 8D cannot be invoked. On facts, the assessee had itself disallowed interest, Demat charges and administrative expenses. The AO had not examined the accounts or given a finding how the assessee’s computation was wrong. Consequently, the invocation of Rule 8D was improper and the disallowance was not permissible (Godrej & Boyce 328 ITR 81 (Bom), Maxopp Investment 247 CTR 162 (Del), Walfort Share 326 ITR 1 (SC), Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H), Justice Sam P Bharucha & Pawan Kumar Parameshwar Lal followed)

Though s. 92B(2) provides for a situation where even a transaction between two non-associated enterprises can be subject to the transfer pricing provisions, it is essential that there should first be an “AE” with whom there exists an “international transaction” before it can be examined whether the international transaction with the “the non-AE” exists or not. On facts, the agreement between the two foreign companies was independent of the agreement between the two Indian domestic companies. The assessee had full authorization to perform and take its own decision with regard to the sale of the imaging segment to the buyer. Even if one accepts that the sale agreement by the assessee was as the result of prior agreement or was consequential upon the agreement between the two non resident companies, yet, as the holding company had not dictated the terms and conditions of the sale and the entire exercise of transfer of imaging segment was independently done on its own terms by the assessee and the buyer, the deeming provision of s. 92B(2) does not apply. The Department’s argument that the legal character of the assessee and the other enterprise be disregarded due to the influence of the agreement between the foreign holding companies is not acceptable (Vodafone vs. UOI 341 ITR 1 (SC) followed)

Though in Capgemini it was held that the concept of economy of scale is relevant only for manufacturing concerns, which have high fixed assets, and not for service concerns and that the turnover filter cannot be applied to exclude companies with an extremely large turnover from comparison, a contrary view has been taken in Deloitte Consulting 145 TTJ 589 (Hyd) that “giant” companies like Wipro are not at all comparable with smaller “pygmy” companies. Consequently, giant companies line Wipro and Infosys cannot be taken as comparables as their turnover is multiple number of times higher compared to that of the assessee and the TPO erred in considering their PLI to arrive at the arithmetic mean

There was a controversy on whether the +/- 5% tolerance adjustment was a standard deduction or not. After the retrospective amendment to the second proviso to s. 92C by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002, it is evident that if the variation between the arm’s length price and the price at which international transaction was actually undertaken does not exceed the specified percentage, then only the price at which the international transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed to be arm’s length price. Thus, the benefit of tolerance margin would be available only if the variation is within the tolerance margin. Once the variation exceeded the tolerance margin, then there would be no benefit even up to tolerance margin. Then, the ALP as worked out under s. 92C(1) shall be taken as ALP without any benefit of tolerance margin. The view taken in Piagio Vehicle was without considering the amendment and is per incuriam and not good law. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the retrospective amendment cannot be made before the Tribunal as it is a creation of the Act and not a constitutional authority

The argument that the foreign AE should be selected as the tested party and the profit earned by the foreign AE from outside comparables should be compared with the price charged by the assessee from the AE to determine whether they are at ALP is not acceptable because under the scheme of s. 92C, the profit actually realized by the Indian assessee from the transaction with its foreign AE has to be compared with that of the comparables. There is no question of substituting the profit realized by the Indian enterprise from its foreign AE with the profit realized by the foreign AE from the ultimate customers for the purposes of determining the ALP of the international transaction of the Indian enterprise with its foreign AE. The scope of TP adjustment under the Indian taxation law is limited to transaction between the assessee and its foreign AE. The contention that the profit earned by the foreign AE should be substituted for the profit of the comparables patently unacceptable. The fact that this may be permissible under the US and UK Regulations is irrelevant

In certain Tribunal decisions, various reasons have been given for applying the turnover filter for comparison of margins such as economy of scale, greater bargaining power, more skilled employees and higher risk taking capabilities in cases of high turnover companies, which increase the margins with rise in turnover. However, in these decisions, no detailed examination has been made as to how these factors increase the profitability with rising turnover. The concept of economy of scale is relevant to manufacturing concerns, which have high fixed assets and, therefore, with the rise in volume, cost per unit of the product decreases, which is the reason of increase in margin as scale of operations goes up because with the same fixed cost there is more output when the turnover is high. The same is not true in case of service companies, which do not require high fixed assets. In these cases employees are the main assets, who in the case of the assessee are software engineers, who are recruited from project to project depending upon the requirement. The revenue in these cases is directly related to manpower utilized. With rise in volume cost goes up proportionately. Therefore, the concept of economy of scale cannot be applied to service oriented companies. On facts, it is shown by the department that in the case of the comparables selected by the assessee, there is no linear relationship between margin and turnover and that that the margin has come down with the rise in turnover in some cases. Such detailed study was not available before the various Benches of the Tribunal which have applied the turnover filter and consequently those decisions cannot be followed

S. 144C(8) empowers the DRP not only to confirm or reduce the variation proposed in the draft order to the benefit of the assessee but also to enhance it to the prejudice of the assessee. This power of enhancement which is impliedly embedded in the matter of issuing directions, due to the use of expression `as it thinks fit’ in s. 144C(5) is expressly set out in s. 144C(8). If the DRP reaches the conclusion that the TPO erred in determining the ALP correctly, warranting further adjustment, the assessee, objecting to the variation in the income due to the order of the TPO, may land in difficulty, and end up with the enhancement of variation. But, for the DRP to exercise its power there has to be some variation proposed in the draft order. The Explanation to s. 144C(8) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009 has widened the DRP’s power of enhancement to all the matters arising out of the assessment proceedings irrespective of whether they were raised or not by the assessee. With this amplification of the power, even the matters not agitated by the assessee before the DRP can also be considered for the purposes of enhancement. Accordingly, in principle, the DRP was entitled to embark upon the question of enhancement of the TP adjustments. However, on facts as the DRP did not give reasonable opportunity to the assessee, the matter has to be remanded to it for fresh consideration

A mere mistake in making of a claim in the return of income would not ipso facto reflect concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of s. 271(1)(c). The wrong claim of depreciation cannot be said to be made with an intention to evade taxes in as much as even after the disallowance of depreciation, the resultant income of the assessee remains a loss. The assessee had been incurring losses since the year 2003 due to the market forces. Considering the entirety of circumstances, the claim on account of depreciation was a mistake, and did not invite the provisions of s. 271(1)(c)