Deduction Under Section 10A and Entity-Level Transfer Pricing: A Deep Dive into the Birlasoft Case

In the dynamic world of tax law, determining eligibility for deductions under Section 10A and applying transfer pricing regulations often lead to disputes. The recent ruling in CIT-I vs. Birlasoft Ltd. by the Delhi High Court sheds light on two key issues:

?

1.???????? Whether a new Software Technology Park (STP) unit is eligible for Section 10A benefits if it is located in the same building as an existing unit.

2.???????? Whether transfer pricing adjustments should be made at the entity level or unit level under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).

?

This case serves as an important precedent for businesses engaged in software exports and highlights the importance of consistency in taxation.

?

Legal Background: Understanding Section 10A and Transfer Pricing Provisions

?

1. Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

Section 10A provides a tax holiday for profits derived by an eligible undertaking in Free Trade Zones (FTZs), Export Processing Zones (EPZs), or Software Technology Parks (STPs) for a period of 10 consecutive assessment years.

?

To qualify:

?

·?????? The undertaking must be engaged in the export of articles, things, or computer software.

·?????? It must not be formed by the splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business.

·?????? It must not use more than 20% of previously used machinery.

?

The benefit under Section 10A is specific to an undertaking and not to the taxpayer as a whole.

?

2. Transfer Pricing – Section 92C and TNMM:

Section 92C governs transfer pricing for international transactions between associated enterprises (AEs). Under the TNMM, the profitability of the tested party is benchmarked against that of comparable entities using a profit-level indicator (PLI) such as Operating Profit to Total Cost (OP/TC).

?

Key points in applying TNMM:

?

·?????? Segmental vs. Entity-Level Benchmarking: If data for specific segments or units is unavailable, profitability is determined at the enterprise level.

·?????? Consistency of Agreements: Where similar services are provided under a single agreement across units, a holistic approach to benchmarking is often preferred.

?

Facts of the Case

?

1.???????? Birlasoft Ltd. is engaged in software development and related services. It operated multiple STP units, including NOIDA-I and NOIDA-II, in the same building but on separate floors.

2.???????? The NOIDA-II unit was set up in 2001, and Birlasoft claimed Section 10A deductions for its profits.

3.???????? The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that NOIDA-II was merely an extension of NOIDA-I and ineligible for Section 10A benefits.

4.???????? The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) analyzed the profitability of each STP unit separately and proposed upward adjustments for NOIDA-I and another unit, while no adjustments were recommended for NOIDA-II.

5.???????? The Commissioner of Appeals (CIT-A) ruled in favor of Birlasoft, holding:

o?? NOIDA-II was a new unit, not a reconstruction of NOIDA-I, and thus eligible for Section 10A.

o?? Transfer pricing benchmarking should be done at the entity level instead of unit-wise.

?

The ITAT upheld the CIT-A's ruling, prompting the Revenue to appeal before the Delhi High Court.

?

Key Issues Examined by the Court

?

1. Eligibility of NOIDA-II for Section 10A Deduction

?

The AO contended that since NOIDA-II was located in the same building as NOIDA-I and carried out similar business activities, it was an extension of the existing unit and not a new undertaking.

?

Court’s Observations:

?

·?????? The court emphasized that for Section 10A eligibility, it is not necessary for the new unit to engage in a different business.

·?????? Birlasoft demonstrated that:

o?? Substantial investment was made in NOIDA-II (?84 million), leading to a doubling of seating capacity from 300 to 700.

o?? The new unit operated independently with its own clients and infrastructure.

o?? The gross block of assets and revenues increased significantly post-establishment of NOIDA-II.

·?????? The Tribunal had earlier accepted NOIDA-II as a new unit in AY 2003-04, and the Revenue did not challenge this finding.

?

Ruling: The court upheld NOIDA-II’s eligibility for Section 10A deduction, emphasizing the importance of consistency in taxation. Once the Revenue accepts the unit as a new undertaking in the initial year, it cannot re-agitate the issue in subsequent years without new facts.

?

2. Entity-Level vs. Unit-Level Transfer Pricing Adjustment

?

The TPO analyzed transfer pricing at the unit level, resulting in adjustments for NOIDA-I and the Chennai unit. However, CIT-A and ITAT directed that benchmarking be done at the enterprise level since:

?

·?????? All units provided similar services to the same AEs under a single agreement.

·?????? There was unity of funds, management, and control across units.

·?????? No significant functional differences existed among the units.

?

Court’s Observations:

?

·?????? Transfer pricing aims to benchmark controlled transactions against uncontrolled comparables of a similar nature.

·?????? Where segmental data is unavailable or unreliable, it is appropriate to determine ALP at the entity level.

·?????? The singularity of agreements and interlinked operations further justified entity-level benchmarking.

?

Ruling: The court upheld the CIT-A’s and ITAT’s findings, rejecting the Revenue’s argument that unit-wise adjustments were required.

?

Key Takeaways from the Ruling

?

1.???????? Consistency in Section 10A Deductions:

o?? Once a unit is accepted as a new undertaking in the initial year, the Revenue cannot challenge its eligibility in subsequent years unless new material facts emerge.

2.???????? Substantial Investment and Independence:

o?? A unit qualifies as a new undertaking if there is substantial investment, capacity expansion, and independent operations, even if it operates in the same building as an existing unit.

3.???????? Entity-Level Benchmarking in Transfer Pricing:

o?? TNMM analysis should be done at the enterprise level when services are rendered under a single agreement with the same AEs, and segmental data is unreliable.

o?? This ruling promotes a holistic approach to benchmarking and reduces arbitrariness in transfer pricing adjustments.

4.???????? Rule of Consistency:

o?? Tax authorities must maintain consistency in their treatment of taxpayers, avoiding contradictory positions without valid reasons.

?

Broader Implications

?

·?????? For Taxpayers: Businesses can rely on this ruling to claim Section 10A deductions for new units established as part of their expansion plans, provided they meet eligibility conditions.

·?????? For Transfer Pricing Practitioners: The judgment underscores the importance of entity-level benchmarking, especially for businesses with interlinked operations and uniform agreements.

·?????? For Revenue Authorities: The decision highlights the need to adopt a practical and consistent approach in assessing transfer pricing and deductions.

?

Conclusion

?

The Delhi High Court’s decision in CIT-I vs. Birlasoft Ltd. provides much-needed clarity on the eligibility of new units for Section 10A deductions and the correct approach for transfer pricing adjustments under TNMM. By emphasizing consistency, economic substance, and practical benchmarking, the ruling balances the interests of taxpayers and tax authorities.

?

For businesses operating multiple units under unified agreements, this case serves as a significant precedent, ensuring fairness in transfer pricing assessments and deductions under Section 10A.