9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant to mention that the Revenue has also taken an additional ground which is relevant for both its grounds, reading as under:- "The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition on account of Arm's Length Price by entertaining additional evidences filed by the assessee without referring the same to the AO for verification in contravention of provisions of sub-section (3) of Rule 46A." 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., USA (CMG). It is engaged in providing IT enabled back office support services only to CMG. Certain international transactions were reported by the assessee. The Transactional Net Margin Method (TNM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able having more than 25% of the related party transactions is to be ignored. Similar view has been taken in Actis Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 20 ITR (Trib.) 138 (Del). Recently, the same view has been reiterated in Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013)-TIL-224- ITAT-DEL-TP. In view of the above decisions, we do not find any infirmity in the reasoning given by the ld. CIT(A) for the exclusion of companies on the basis of related party transactions of more than 25%. 5. The ld. DR contended that the ld. CIT(A) accepted the above percentage of related party transactions in respect of these three companies without confronting it to the TPO. It can be seen from the assessee's letter dated 26.10.2006 addressed to the TPO, a copy of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e included in the list of comparables. In the otherwise situation, the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in excluding it from the list of comparables, be upheld. 7. The second ground taken by the Department is against the inclusion of Weal Infotech Ltd. by the ld. CIT(A) in the list of comparables. On this score, we find that the assessee included this company in the list of comparables, but, due to the absence of the relevant annual accounts, the working of OP/TC of this company was not calculated. Accordingly, this case was included in the list of comparables with the remarks 'NA' against the column OP/TC margin. The assessee submitted the data in respect of this company before the ld. CIT(A), which came in public domain later on. Such data w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing arithmetic mean of PLI of the comparable companies. 9. The only issue raised by the assessee in its cross objection is about the exclusion of Tricom India Ltd., from the list of comparables. No other issue taken in the cross objection, was pressed by the ld. AR. 10. As regards Tricom India Ltd., it is seen that the assessee included this company in the list of comparables. The statedinadvertent inclusion of this company was neither challenged before the TPO nor before the ld. CIT(A). It is for the first time that the assessee has challenged the inclusion of this company before us on account of high abnormal profit. The ld. DR objected to the action of the assessee in now contending before the Tribunal for the first time to exclude thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
