India: Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT Functional Characterization Is First Step In Comparability Exercise; Role Of Indian Services Provider In Patents Registered In Group's Name Relevant

Last Updated: 3 October 2018
Article by SKP  

Facts of the Taxpayer

The taxpayer, resident in India, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Ireland Research Ltd with the ultimate parent company, Microsoft Corporation USA (MS USA). The taxpayer is mainly engaged in rendering software development services and information technology enabled services (together referred to as 'international transactions') to its Associated Enterprise (AE) viz MS USA. The taxpayer was remunerated on a cost-plus 15% for both the services.

The taxpayer used Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to benchmark the international transactions using external comparable companies. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) concluded that the taxpayer is providing high-end software development services and accordingly rejected almost all the comparable companies of the taxpayer on this ground and also introduced a few new comparable companies. Since the operating margin of comparable companies finally selected by the TPO was higher than that of the taxpayer, the TPO made transfer pricing adjustment for the differential. The dispute resolution panel confirmed the order of the TPO except that it removed one comparable company from TPO's list which reduced the transfer pricing adjustment marginally.

The detailed facts, arguments of the taxpayer, contention of the TPO and observations of the Tribunal are discussed below:

Provision of Software Development Services

Submissions of the taxpayer

Software development services primarily included two things – contract software development services and internal information technology support. In the entire software product lifecycle, the taxpayer submitted that it provided limited services (writing and testing codes) to AE and that too under their directions.

For major products, services were rendered only for certain functions or modules within the product and not for the whole product, as the same was done by the AE in USA.

For minor products like BizTalk and Data Protection Manager, the taxpayer in India did significant work on product engineering and design work.

Contention of the Transfer Pricing Officer

While examining the said transaction, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) held that the remuneration of cost-plus 15% was not at arm's length as MS USA earned margin ranging between 60% and 70% based on services rendered by Indian taxpayer. Furthermore, TPO alleged that the Indian taxpayer rendered more than routine software development services, which helped the AE in creating 113 patents, which were registered in the USA. The TPO further alleged that even though the overall work was to be supervised by the AE, the work done by the taxpayer was to be done by its own team of experts having 1,376 persons. TPO concluded that the software development services rendered were high end in nature and resulted in the creation of intangibles which are distinct from a routine software developer.

Accordingly, TPO retained only one company from the taxpayer set and chose three new companies for the purpose of benchmarking analysis. Working Capital Adjustment claimed by the taxpayer was disallowed by the TPO with the view that such an adjustment cannot be made as a matter of practice and routine. Thus an adjustment of INR 1,972.40 million was made after Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) granted a minor relief.

Aggrieved by this, the taxpayer filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). We have briefly summarized the ITAT's observations and judgment on each of the critical grounds/submissions/justifications made by the taxpayer:

ITAT observations and judgment

  1. Functional profile of the taxpayer

The primary contention of the taxpayer being inclusion of all companies from its own benchmarking set and exclusion of certain companies selected by the TPO, the ITAT held that comparability of companies could be gauged only after fully ascertaining the functional profile of the taxpayer. Based thereon, the ITAT analyzed the submissions and the documents that were placed before them. The same are tabulated below:

Sr. No.

Submission/Documents analyzed

Observation/Comments of ITAT


  • Transfer pricing documentation; and
  • Interviews of certain employees conducted by the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) authorities
  • The ITAT held that statements of the taxpayer in the APA submissions were inconclusive as no decision of the APA has come so far.
  • The taxpayer failed to submit any material/evidence to justify the nature of work, a limited role played by it while providing these services and only harped on the interviews conducted by the APA authorities.


  • Parent-Subsidiary Agreement (PSA) between MS USA and the taxpayer; and
  • Amended and restated PSA on 1 January 2009 with retrospective effect from 1 July 2003
  • Admittedly (during APA interview) the taxpayer maintained all primary records relating to workflow but did not produce the same before the authorities in spite of requests and simply doing lip service, trying to marginalize its role to a bare minimum.
  • Based on a few clauses that were amended in PSA dated 1 January 2009, it was observed that the work to be performed would not only be confined to developing code, but also otherwise completing the project assigned to it by MS USA, which was contrary to the claims made by the taxpayer.
  • PSA and amended restated PSA clearly indicate that the nature of work done by the taxpayer is that of Research and Development (R&D) in the overall Microsoft products albeit to a limited extent.


Sample copies of Patents registered in the USA

  • The fact that 113 patentable inventions were done by taxpayer in India by its software development work that got registered in the USA leaves no room for doubt that it is undoubtedly engaged in research activities and is significantly different from a routine software developer.
  • Even though integration of all the software developed in several countries is done in the USA that does not mean that the research work done by the taxpayer or for that matter by AEs in the other countries, ceases to be a research work in itself.
  • Though taxpayer cannot be categorized as a full-time software developer, but with its limited involvement and within the scope of work assigned, it is undertaking R&D and creating intangibles, which are even patented.


Letter dated 12 January 2015 submitted by the taxpayer before the TPO

It was observed that the taxpayer admitted that it continues to be a development center undertaking contract R&D activity with insignificant risk.

Additionally, the ITAT also analyzed the functions of a taxpayer in light of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 6 dated 29 June 2013 on "functional profile of development centers engaged in contract R&D services with insignificant risk-conditions relevant to identify such development centers." The observations of the ITAT in this regard are tabulated below:

Sr. No.

Condition as laid down in Circular No. 6/2013

ITAT Observations

Foreign Principal

Indian Development Centre (IDC)

AE (as Foreign Principal)

Taxpayer (IDC)


Performs economically significant functions (conceptualization, the design of the product, provide strategic direction and framework)

Carries out work assigned by the Foreign Principal.




  • Provides economically significant assets (capital/funds, intangibles) for carrying out research and product development work
  • Remunerates the IDC for work done.


  • Yes

  • Yes – Cost plus 15%



Control or supervise research or product development by strategic decisions to perform core functions as well as monitor activities on a regular basis

Works under the direct supervision of the foreign principal





Conduct shows that no economically significant realized risks are borne by it




If it is located in low or no tax jurisdiction; assumed that it does not control risk unless proved otherwise by IDC


Not applicable, as AE not located in low/no tax jurisdiction



Retains ownership right, which is evident from the contract as well as the conduct of foreign principal

No ownership right (legal or economic) on the outcome of the research



Based on the aforesaid observations the ITAT concluded that the taxpayer is a contract R&D service provider.

  1. Comparable Companies for benchmarking software development services

Basis the above findings on functional characterization of the taxpayer, the ITAT suggested following parameters for selection of comparable companies for benchmarking purposes in the instant case:

  • Comparable company should have income from R&D activities.
  • Appropriate segmental information should be available if the company earns income from software services as well as products.
  • Companies spending on R&D activities wholly for its internal use cannot be compared.
  • Persistent loss-making segment/company, cannot be considered as a comparable.
  • Simply because a company was wrongly considered by the taxpayer as comparable, it cannot act as a deterrent from challenging before the ITAT.

Considering all the above findings, the ITAT remitted the matter to the file of the TPO for fresh determination of their Arm's Length Price (ALP) based on above guidance.

Provision of information technology enabled services

Contention of the Transfer Pricing Officer

The modus operandi of the TPO to determine the ALP of information technology enabled services transactions was similar to that of software development services viz removing comparable companies of a taxpayer and introducing new comparable companies. DRP confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment.

ITAT observations and judgment

  1. Functional profile of the taxpayer
    Under the ITES Segment, taxpayer was engaged in resolving technical problems in respect of complaints received from the customers of Microsoft. On perusal of the submissions, the ITAT was of the view that unlike software development services, there is no conflict in the nature of services rendered by the taxpayer under this segment, i.e. ITeS services.
  2. Comparable companies for benchmarking ITeS
    The ITAT suggested following parameters for selection of comparable companies for benchmarking of ITeS services in the instant case:
    • The services rendered under this segment cannot be compared to companies earning revenue from Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) operations, software services.
    • Segmental information should be available if the company earns income from services as well as products.
    • Persistent loss-making segment/company cannot be considered as a comparable.
    • If the company having different financial year ending is functionally comparable and relevant data for the concerned financial year can be deduced from the information available from its Annual reports, then, there can be no objection to the inclusion of the relevant segment of the company in the list of comparables with the adjusted data.
    • The company having high or low turnover can be no reason to justify its exclusion if it is otherwise functionally comparable.

Considering all the above findings, the ITAT remitted the matter to the file of the TPO for a fresh determination of their ALP.

SKP's Comments

Be it Google, McKinsey and now Microsoft, the Indian tax authorities are increasingly focusing on functional profile and economic characterization of Indian service providers for determining the comparability and ALP. This is a significant shift from the historical approach of majorly deciding the case basis the legal arguments of the appellants. The tax authorities seems to have picked-up relevant aspects from BEPS Action Plan 8 to 10 – aligning transfer pricing outcomes to value creation - whether it is disregarding of contractual terms and giving importance to actual conduct or assessing the value creation in the entire supply chain.

In the above-referred case of Microsoft, the ITAT also factored the role of Indian taxpayer in 100+ patents registered in the USA for determining the economic characterization. This will perhaps trigger fresh approach on part of the field level tax authorities in analyzing the role of Indian taxpayers in patents registered in the name of overseas AE.

Transfer pricing analysis is a two-sided analysis of the functional profile of both the taxpayer and its AEs. Multinational Enterprises having Indian development centers should reassess their functional profile and transfer pricing policy in light of the above ruling. It would be extremely difficult for the taxpayers who have carried out one-sided analysis and are just trying to marginalize its role to a support service provider to justify its transactions at ALP, unless they are backed by robust documentation.


1 ITA No. 1479/Del/2016 and ITA No. 691/Del/2016

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
SKP Business Consulting LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
SKP Business Consulting LLP
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions