Facts of the
Case
- The assessee, Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., is
engaged in software development and IT-enabled services and is a
subsidiary of Microsoft Ireland Research Ltd.
- For AY 2011-12, the assessee filed income declaring over ₹201
crores.
- The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)
for determination of ALP.
- TPO proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of approx. ₹240
crores.
- Final assessment order was passed under Sections 143(3)/144C
determining higher taxable income.
- Both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before ITAT, and subsequently before Delhi High Court.
Issues
Involved
- Whether certain companies (Infosys, Persistent Systems, Wipro
Technology Services) should be included as comparables.
- Whether a company included by the assessee can later be excluded.
- Whether transactions under prior agreements fall under deemed
international transactions (Section 92B(2)).
- Whether absence of segmental data invalidates comparability.
- Whether ITAT was justified in remanding corporate tax issues
instead of deciding them.
- Treatment of income classification and deductions under Section
10A.
Petitioner’s
(Assessee’s) Arguments
- Certain comparables were functionally dissimilar, engaged in
software products along with services.
- Lack of segmental financial data makes comparison invalid.
- A wrongly included comparable can be challenged later; there is no
estoppel in tax proceedings.
- ITAT wrongly remanded issues instead of deciding them despite
availability of material and binding precedent.
- Classification of income and TP characterization was erroneous.
Respondent’s
(Revenue’s) Arguments
- Companies like Persistent Systems Ltd. were included by
assessee itself and should not be excluded later.
- Comparables satisfied filters applied by TPO.
- ITAT erred in excluding valid comparables.
- Assessee cannot resile from its own transfer pricing study.
Court
Findings / Order
On Transfer
Pricing Comparables
- Infosys Ltd. & Persistent Systems Ltd.
- Excluded due to mixed revenue from software products and
services and absence of segmental data.
- Wipro Technology Services Ltd.
- Excluded because transactions were deemed international
transactions under Section 92B(2) and hence not “uncontrolled”.
On Estoppel
- The Court held:
There is no
estoppel against law; even if assessee included a comparable, it can
challenge it later if incorrect.
On Revenue
Appeal
- Dismissed – No substantial question of law arose.
On Assessee
Appeal
- Partly allowed:
- ITAT should not have remanded issues mechanically; must
decide when material is available.
- Matter remanded back to ITAT for limited adjudication on corporate
tax issues.
- Other issues (e.g., Section 10A claim) – no interference required.
Important
Clarifications
- Functional similarity is key in
transfer pricing—not merely passing filters.
- Segmental data is crucial for
comparability.
- Deemed international transactions (Section 92B(2)) can convert otherwise uncontrolled transactions into controlled
ones.
- No estoppel in tax law—incorrect
positions can be corrected.
- ITAT should avoid routine remand where facts are already
available.
Sections
Involved
- Section 92B(2) – Deemed International Transactions
- Rule 10B(1)(e)(ii) – Comparable Uncontrolled Transactions
- Section 10A – Deduction
- Section 143(3) – Assessment
- Section 144C – DRP Proceedings
- Section 260A – Appeal before High Court
Link to download the
order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2021:DHC:11-DB/SVN04012021ITA2472019_153320.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and
knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information
from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or
advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability
arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the
assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment