9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application, the application is allowed. The delay of 69 days in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA 913/2017 1. The question of law urged in this case is whether the deletion of 16 comparables originally proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in the course of assessment for AY 2007-2008, in the ALP (Arms Length Price) determination, conducted in respect of the assessee, is erroneous. 2. The facts are that the assessee is engaged in software development services to its associated enterprise (AE Group) Genesis Microchip Inc., US. With regard to transfer price required to be furnished in the Court, the assessee compared its activities to 55 comparable entities performing similar functions. The TPO upon his undert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iterated decision in Hewlett Packard India Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. (pages 558 to 585 of the paper book). It was of the opinion that since the functional profile of the assessee was identical to that of Hewlett Packard India Global Soft Pvt. Ltd., no different conclusions could have been arrived at. 7. It is argued on behalf of the Revenue that the ITAT fell into error in mechanically following the decision in Hewlett Packard India Global Soft Pvt. Ltd.(supra). It was urged that the ITAT, who had, after taking into account its previous ruling in Hewlett Packard India Global Soft Pvt. Ltd.(supra), remitted the matter for reconsideration of the TPO to determine whether, as a matter of fact, functional profile of the entities, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case. As noticed previously, the ITAT extracted its previous ruling in Hewlett Packard India Global Soft Pvt. Ltd.(supra) to the extent of 26 pages. This extract contained an analysis of each of 16 comparables that are in issue in the present appeal. Therefore, the submission of the Revenue lacks merit. 12. The Revenue or for that matter any party may be correct in contending, that a blind application of precedent, merely because in a previous ruling the Tribunal accepted or did not accept the comparables, cannot per se be a ground for excluding it or including it later. At the same time, while testing the application of that Rule, the Court has to be careful to discern whether, in fact, the subsequent ruling, which relies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
