KPMG FLASH NEWS KPMG IN INDIA Pune Tribunal rejects high margin companies, after considering if the high profits reflect a normal business phenomena or they are a result of certain abnormal conditions 16 October 2014 Background Recently, the Pune Bench of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of the Indian branch of 1 Cummins Turbo Technology Limited, U.K. (the Company or the taxpayer) has rejected high margin companies after considering if the high profits reflect a normal business phenomena or if they are a result of certain abnormal conditions. The Tribunal has also rejected companies into call centre activity. Overall, it has resulted in the deletion of the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment. Facts of the case The taxpayer is an Indian branch of a U.K. based company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of turbochargers. The taxpayer is engaged in the business of providing support services in the areas of finance, human resource, marketing, database support, product management support/supply chain management support, information technology services and engineering services for its parent office. The appeals relate to two different assessment years for the same taxpayer. For Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08 With respect to the provision of IT enabled services, the taxpayer in its TP study adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price and computed the arithmetic mean of the comparable companies as 15.54 per cent, while the taxpayer had an operating margin of 11.76 per cent. Thus the transaction was concluded to be at arm’s length after taking the benefit of +/-5 per cent provided under the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). ___________ 1 Cummins Turbo Technology Limited v. DDIT (ITA Nos. 161 & 269/PN/2013) – Taxsutra.com © 2014 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. During the course of TP assessment proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected few companies and selected other comparable companies and on the basis of single year data re-computed the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of comparable companies as 22.20 per cent, and thereby proposed a TP adjustment. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed partial relief to the taxpayer with respect to recomputation of margins of certain comparable companies and also allowed working capital adjustment. Contentions before the Tribunal and findings of the Tribunal Before the Tribunal, the taxpayer raised contentions against rejection/selection of certain comparable companies by the TPO/CIT(A) which are summarised in the table below along with the findings of the Tribunal: Taxpayer’s objections Company Informed Technologies India Limited (Informed Technologies) Abnormal profit making company Maple eSolutions Limited (Maple eSolutions) Engaged services Tribunal’s findings Placed reliance on the Special Bench Ruling in the case of Maersk Global Wide fluctuation in profit over a period of Centers (India) Private Limited2 wherein it time was held that appropriate investigation is Operating margin trend over five year required for including/ excluding a high period (preceding three years and the profit making company subsequent year) ranging from (69.07) Directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to per cent to 34.71 per cent. reject Informed Technologies as a comparable company since the financial results over the years did not reflect normal business trend. Merely because the two kinds of activities are referred to as IT enabled services under Central Board of Direct Taxes Activities performed by the taxpayer (CBDT) notification, the same cannot be concluded to be similar different from Maple eSolutions in providing call centre Placed reliance on various rulings wherein financial results of Maple eSolutions were found to be unreliable on account of its directors being involved in certain frauds. 3 Directed the AO to reject Maple eSolutions as a comparable company on account of difference in the nature of services and unreliability of financial data. Considering the above exclusions the TP adjustment stands deleted, and accordingly other grounds were not adjudicated for AY 2007-08. AY 2008-09 During the AY 2008-09, the taxpayer had adopted TNMM for benchmarking the transaction of IT enabled services and thereby determined the arm’s length margin of comparable companies as 10.28 per cent while the taxpayer had an operating margin of 10.03 per cent. Thus, the transaction was concluded to be at arm’s length after taking the benefit of +/-5 per cent provided under the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. ____________ 2 Maersk Global Centres (India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT (I TA No.7466/Mum/2012) - It was held in the Special Bench Ruling of Maersk Global that the profit margin earned by such entity in the immediately preceding years may also be taken into consideration to find out whether the high profit margin represents normal business trend 3 CRM Services India (P) Ltd [ITA No. 4068 (Del)/ 2009], Capital IQ Information Systems (India) Pvt Ltd v. DCIT [ITA No. 1961/Hyd/2011] © 2014 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. KPMG FLASH NEWS KPMG IN INDIA During the course of TP assessment proceedings, the TPO rejected few companies and selected other comparable companies, and on the basis of single year data re-computed the PLI of comparable companies as 27.61 per cent, which was later rectified to 24.91 per cent, thereby leading to a TP adjustment. Against the aforesaid addition, the taxpayer filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) wherein the DRP granted relief with respect to rectifying the margins of certain companies and allowing the working capital adjustment. Thus, based on the directions of the DRP, the AO passed its order reducing the TP adjustment. Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the taxpayer filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Contentions before the Tribunal and findings of the Tribunal Before the Tribunal, the taxpayer raised the contentions against rejection/selection of certain comparable companies by the TPO/DRP, which are summarised in the table below: Taxpayer’s objections Company Coral Hubs Limited (Coral Hubs) Tribunal’s findings Engaged in the business of conversion The nature as well as business model of books into POD titles (e-publishing needs to be examined to establish business) comparability Significant operations business Directed the AO to reject Coral Hubs on account of difference in the business model. Placed reliance on Tribunal’s ruling in the case of Maersk Global Service 4 Centre (India) Private Limited. outsourcing of Genesys Abnormally high profit margin Placed reliance on the Special Bench International Ruling in the case of Maersk Global 5 Wide fluctuations in the margin earned Corporation Centers (India) Private Limited and over the three year period ranging from Limited (Genesys) directed the AO to reject Genesys by 2.64 per cent to 46.82 per cent. following the same approach as that adopted for exclusion of Informed Technologies for AY 2007-08. Considering the above exclusions the TP adjustment stands deleted and accordingly other grounds were not adjudicated for AY 2008-09. Our comments This decision of the Pune Tribunal relies on the Special Bench ruling in the case of Maersk Global to exclude companies with wide margin fluctuations over a period of time arising due to abnormal conditions. The Tribunal also provided an important observation that merely because two kinds of activities are referred as ITES under the CBDT notification, the same does not imply that they are functionally identical/similar. ____________ 4 It was held in the Mumbai Tribunal ruling of ACIT v. Maersk Global Services Centre India Private Limited [66 DTR 90] that incase of concerns having outsourced considerable portion of the business, it would not be appropriate to include it as a comparable company 5 It was held in the Special Bench Ruling of Maersk Global that the profit margin earned by such entity in the immediately preceding years may also be taken into consideration to find out whether the high profit margin represents normal business trend © 2014 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. www.kpmg.com/in Ahmedabad Commerce House V, 9th Floor, 902 & 903, Near Vodafone House, Corporate Road, Prahlad Nagar, Ahmedabad – 380 051 Tel: +91 79 4040 2200 Fax: +91 79 4040 2244 Bengaluru Maruthi Info-Tech Centre 11-12/1, Inner Ring Road Koramangala, Bangalore 560 071 Tel: +91 80 3980 6000 Fax: +91 80 3980 6999 Chandigarh SCO 22-23 (Ist Floor) Sector 8C, Madhya Marg Chandigarh 160 009 Tel: +91 172 393 5777/781 Fax: +91 172 393 5780 Chennai No.10, Mahatma Gandhi Road Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034 Tel: +91 44 3914 5000 Fax: +91 44 3914 5999 Delhi Building No.10, 8th Floor DLF Cyber City, Phase II Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002 Tel: +91 124 307 4000 Fax: +91 124 254 9101 Hyderabad 8-2-618/2 Reliance Humsafar, 4th Floor Road No.11, Banjara Hills Hyderabad 500 034 Tel: +91 40 3046 5000 Fax: +91 40 3046 5299 Kochi Syama Business Center 3rd Floor, NH By Pass Road, Vytilla, Kochi – 682019 Tel: +91 484 302 7000 Fax: +91 484 302 7001 Kolkata Unit No. 603 – 604, 6th Floor, Tower – 1, Godrej Waterside, Sector – V, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 091 Tel: +91 33 44034000 Fax: +91 33 44034199 Mumbai Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills N. M. Joshi Marg Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011 Tel: +91 22 3989 6000 Fax: +91 22 3983 6000 Pune 703, Godrej Castlemaine Bund Garden Pune 411 001 Tel: +91 20 3050 4000 Fax: +91 20 3050 4010 The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. © 2014 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity“ are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. © 2014 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
© Copyright 2024