9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that this issue is also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) and therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the same. The Revenue’s Ground of appeal No.2 is therefore, rejected. Expenditure incurred towards employees stock (ESOPs) - Held that: -We find that this issue is also covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal at Bangalore in the case of Biocon Ltd (2013 (8) TMI 629 - ITAT BANGALORE) which has been taken note of by the DRP in directing the AO to allow the same as revenue expenditure. - ITA No. 380/Hyd/2015, C.O. No. 31/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2016 - P. Madhavi Devi (Judicial Member) And S. Rifaur Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP is justified in rejecting the comparable companies M/s Infosys Technologies Ltd and M/s L T InfoTech Ltd on the ground of exceptionally large scale of operations and thereby ignoring the fact that high or low turnover do not influence the margins of the comparables? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the DRP is correct in law in holding that the telecommunication charges and other expenditure should be excluded from the 'total turnover' for the purpose of computation of allowable deduction under section 10 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when there is no such specific provision to reduce the 'total turnover'? 4. Whether in the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;ble Delhi High Court for the A.Y 2006-07 and the Hon'ble High Court, taking note of the functional dissimilarities as well as exceptionally high turnover, has directed that this company be excluded from the list of comparables. We find that even for the relevant A.Y, there is no change in the activities of Infosys Technologies Ltd and that, it is carrying on diversified activities of both the software development services and product development and has huge turnover as compared to the assessee. Further, this Tribunal, in the case of Virtusa India Private Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No.409/Hyd/2015, for the very same A.Y 2010-11, has also considered the comparability of this company with the assessee therein which has a similar activity a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tata Elxsi Ltd., the Tribunal has directed that this company be excluded on functional dissimilarity. 8. The Ld. D.R., though, has relied upon the order of the TPO and A.O., has not been able to bring any evidence on record to show that the facts in this year are in any way different from the facts in the A.Y. 2007-08. 9. Having regard to the rival contentions we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the DRP and the Revenue's appeal is accordingly dismissed 7. As facts and circumstances are similar in the case before us, we are satisfied that there is functional dissimilarity between the assessee and Infosys Technologies Ltd including the high turnover and therefore, the said company has to be excluded. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
