9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1976 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - comparable selection - Suo moto exclusion by assessee - HELD THAT - Comparable suo moto excluded by CIT (A) being M/s. Microland Limited is restored back in the final list of comparables in view of this fact that it was suo moto excluded by CIT (A) and the assessee is not interested in its exclusion. Accordingly ground no. 2 of revenue's appeal is partly allowed. Accentia Technologies, Cosmic Global Ltd.,Eclerx Services Ltd. and Infosys BPO Ltd.- Assessee is engaged in Business Process Outsourcing Services - As per order rendered in the case of e4e Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2016 (3) TMI 356 - ITAT BANGALORE we find that these four comparables were excluded from the list of final comparables. Respectfully following this Tribunal order, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of CIT (A) in respect of this aspect of exclusion of these four comparables from the list of final comparables and hence, on this aspect, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A).
Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of comparables by CIT(A). 2. Functional dissimilarity of certain comparables. 3. Impact of extraordinary events on comparability. 4. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exclusion of Comparables by CIT(A): The revenue's appeal contested the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude five companies (Infosys BPO Ltd, Accentia Technologies Ltd, Cosmic Global Ltd, Eclerx Services Ltd, and Microland Ltd) from the list of comparables. The Tribunal restored Microland Ltd. to the list of comparables as it was suo moto excluded by CIT(A) and the assessee had no objection to its inclusion. Thus, ground no. 2 of the revenue’s appeal was partly allowed. 2. Functional Dissimilarity of Certain Comparables: The Tribunal examined the functional profiles of the remaining four companies and found them to be functionally dissimilar to the assessee, which is engaged in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) services. Accentia Technologies Ltd: The Tribunal noted that Accentia Technologies Ltd. is engaged in diversified activities like medical transcription, coding, and billing, which are different from the contact center services provided by the assessee. Therefore, Accentia Technologies Ltd. was not considered a good comparable. Eclerx Services Ltd: Eclerx Services Ltd. was found to be engaged in high-end services like data analytics and process solutions, which are more complex and involve decision-making processes, unlike the low-end services provided by the assessee. Hence, it was excluded from the list of comparables. Infosys BPO Ltd: Infosys BPO Ltd. was excluded due to its large scale of operations and the extraordinary event of amalgamation during the year under consideration. Additionally, Infosys BPO Ltd. provides business process management services, which are different from the direct BPO services offered by the assessee. Cosmic Global Ltd: Cosmic Global Ltd. was found to have major revenue from translation services and outsourced a significant portion of its work, making it functionally different from the assessee. Therefore, it was excluded from the list of comparables. 3. Impact of Extraordinary Events on Comparability: The Tribunal considered the impact of extraordinary events such as mergers and acquisitions on the comparability of companies. For instance, the acquisition of M/s. Oak Technologies by Accentia Technologies Ltd. and the amalgamation of PAN Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. with Infosys BPO Ltd. were deemed to affect their comparability with the assessee. 4. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP): The Tribunal emphasized that the determination of ALP requires a careful comparability analysis. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude the four functionally dissimilar companies from the list of comparables, thereby affirming the CIT(A)'s approach to determining the ALP. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the revenue was partly allowed, specifically restoring Microland Ltd. to the list of comparables, while the exclusion of the other four companies by CIT(A) was upheld. The Cross Objection (C.O.) filed by the assessee was dismissed. The Tribunal's order was pronounced in the open court.
|
