2018 (7) TMI 2178 - HC - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - comparable selection - ALP - substantial question of law or fact - Tribunal excluding comparables Company having turnover exceeding 200 Crores by following its earlier decision - whether the Tribunal is right inlaw in excluding comparables such as Bothree Consulting Ltd. Kals Information Systems Ltd. Tata Elxsi and Infosys Technologies Ltd.? - HELD THAT - The controversy involved herein is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in M/s.Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT wherein it has been observed that unless the finding of the Tribunal is found ex facie perverse the Appeal u/s. 260-A of the Act is not maintainable. Thus no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present case.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal by Revenue challenging exclusion of comparables with turnover exceeding ?200 Crores, and exclusion of specific comparables like Bothree Consulting Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd., Tata Elxsi, and Infosys Technologies Ltd.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the exclusion of comparables with turnover exceeding ?200 Crores by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'C'. The Tribunal had admitted the appeal to consider substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal. The first substantial question of law was whether the Tribunal was correct in excluding comparables with turnover exceeding ?200 Crores when the Transfer Pricing Officer had selected comparables based on facts on record. The Tribunal, in line with a previous decision in the case of Airbus India Operations Pvt. Ltd., excluded companies with turnover exceeding ?200 Crores. The second substantial question of law pertained to the exclusion of specific comparables like Kals Information Systems Ltd. The Tribunal, following the decision in the case of Airbus India Operations Pvt. Ltd., directed the exclusion of Kals Information Systems Ltd. and other comparables.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the findings that certain companies should be excluded as comparables due to their turnover exceeding ?200 Crores, aligning with the decision in the case of Airbus India Operations Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also excluded specific comparables like Kals Information Systems Ltd. based on similar reasoning. The controversy was deemed settled by a previous decision of the Court, stating that unless the Tribunal's finding is ex facie perverse, appeals under Section 260-A of the Act are not maintainable. The Court emphasized that issues related to comparables selection do not give rise to substantial questions of law suitable for appeal.

In conclusion, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose in the present case. The appeals filed by the Revenue were deemed devoid of merit and were dismissed. The Court clarified that dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of facts is not sufficient to invoke Section 260-A of the Act. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs, emphasizing the consistent application of parameters in such cases, irrespective of the party filing the appeal.