9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's contention that profit margin worked out by the TPO is incorrect requires to be examined by the TPO/Assessing Officer the matter restored to the AO for fresh adjudication to examine the assessee's contentions on this aspect and accordingly decide the PLI of this comparable. Exclusion of Mercury Outsourcing Management Ltd and Transworks Information Services Ltd as comparables Held that:- The order of the CIT(A) is not elaborate - The nature of the related party transactions cannot be examined and the TPO's working is different from the assessee in the interests of justice the matter restored back to the AO to re-examine the functionality of the company afresh Decided in favour of Assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultimately making an addition of Rs.19,10,88,959 on account of Arm's Length Price Difference, and allowing deduction under S.10A worked out at Rs.23,32,20,553, completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.29,42,22,092. 5. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee inter-alia contested some of the comparable companies selected by the TPO/Assessing Officer for determining the Arm's Length Price. Though the CIT(A) has accepted the contentions of the assessee in relation to selection of comparables, and partly allowed the appeal, the assessee is still aggrieved and is in second appeal before us. 6. The assessee's main objection, contested in this appeal, is with regard to inclusion/ exclusion of (a) Wipro BPO Solutions (b) Mercury Outsour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selected by the TPO during the assessment proceedings, as it satisfied all the filters applied by him. The assessee also accepted the same. However, the CIT(A) vide page 17 of his order excluded the said comparable. It is the contention of the assessee that the CIT(A) wrongly excluded the same, when both the assessee and the TPO are in agreement with regard to the correct selection of the said comparable. 9. We are not sure how the CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the company is functionally different from that of the assessee, when the TPO and the assessee are agreeing for the comparable nature of this company for inclusion. Since the order of the CIT(A) is not elaborate, in the interests of justice, we restore the matter to the file of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransactions, it is the contention of the assessee that this company should be selected as a comparable, since it satisfied all the filters applied by the TPO/of the above, 11. As we are not in a position to examine the nature of the related party transactions and why TPO's working is different from the assessee, in the interests of justice, we restore this issue also to the file of the Assessing Officer /TPO to examine the contentions of the assessee afresh and decide the issue accordingly. If the assessee's working given above is correct, then it does not fall within the filter adopted by the AO/TPO for Related Party Transactions, However, whether the same can be included on the basis of the functions performed and any other filter comes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
