9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bnormally high. Thus, this company has made super normal profit and is found to be functionally not comparable to the assessee which is a limited risk service provider. In this case, ratio of employee expenses to sales is only 8.82% which is extremely low for service company. However, the ratio of companies selected by the TPO himself have a ratio of employee expenses to sales in the range of 30-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act. 2. It was argued by the learned AR that the Transfer Pricing adjustment has been made by the TPO by selecting the comparables in respect of provisions of IT enabled back office support services. As per learned AR, appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 27-2-2014, which was fixed for hearing on 26-6-2014. On 26-6-2014, on the request o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s required to be made. 4. Learned AR further submitted that if the seven comparables selected by the TPO stated at Sl.No.2,3,4,7,8,11 21 are excluded from comparables because they are not functionally comparable, assessee s mark-up of cost of 17.11% will be higher than the mark-up so arrived at 11.69% after excluding these seven comparables. Accordingly, it was argued that assessee s mark-up on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is extremely low for service company. However, the ratio of companies selected by the TPO himself have a ratio of employee expenses to sales in the range of 30-60% and ratio of assessee for the relevant assessment year under consideration is also 60%. If this comparable is excluded, assessee s mark-up cost would come within +5%. Accordingly, we find that assessee has prima facie case in its favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
