9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds raised by the revenue are as under; "1) The order of the learned DRP is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case 2) The learned DRP erred in holding that the size and turnover of the company are deciding factors for treating a company as a comparable and accordingly erred in excluding M/s. E- clerk Services Ltd and Infosys BPO Limited as com parables. 3) The learned DRP erred in excluding uncontrolled comparables having turnover more than Rs. 200 crores in the absence of Turnover criterion prescribed in Rule 10B of Income Tax Rules and also there being no correlation between turnover and profit margin. 4) The learned DRP has erred in directed the TPO to grant risk adjustment of 1 % based on the decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised by the assessee are as under; "Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Yodlee Infotech India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Appellant"), respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the appeal order passed by the learned Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as the "learned AO"] under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1.The learned AO, based on directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in assessing the total income at Rs. 3,65,49,702 as against returned income of Rs. 5,15,771 computed by the Appellant; Transfer Pricing Adjustment On the facts and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b.The learned AOITPO erred in rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the appellant on the ground that the com parables were having different accounting year (other than March 31 or companies whose financial statements were for a period other than 12 months); and c. The learned AO/TPO erred in rejecting certain comparable identified by the appellant using export earnings greater than75% of the sales as a comparability criterion. 6.The Hon'ble DRP erred, in law and in facts, by suo-moto modifying the related party transactions ("RPT") filter of 'more than 25 percent' to 'equal to 0 percent' and thereby rejecting certain companies, which otherwise were passing the filter of RPT < 25 percent applied and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected for having export sales more than 75% export sales j) Goldstone Technologies Limited Companies rejected for financial irregularities k) Sat yam Computer Services Ltd Other reasons I) Silver Line Technologies Limited m) R Systems International Ltd Company accepted by TPO based on unreasonable comparability criteria a) M/s Kals Information Systems Ltd which was rejected by the Tribunal in the Appellant's own case for A Y 2009-10 Without prejudice to the above ground, the Appellant wishes to reserve the right to add comparables to the above list and also take up different reasons for argument General Grounds 10.The learned AO erred, in law, and in facts, in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties below and in view of the factual and legal position as discussed above, we feel that in the facts of the present case, where the DRP has applied 0% RPT filter and as per the settled position of law by now, the RPT filter should be applied at the rate of 15%, we set aside the order of the AO/TPO and restore back the matter to the file of the AO/TPO for a fresh decision by applying RPT filter of 15%. We also hold that since the matter is going back to the file of the AO/TPO and much development has taken place in the legal position on the TP issue, now the entire matter should be reexamined and decided afresh by the AO/TPO as per the present legal position, which may result into fresh consideration of those comparables which were rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
