9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view the appeals filed and withdraw the same, in case the only challenge therein is to finding of facts, if the same is without evidence of any perversity or is in the face of settled legal position. Revenue is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax within the State of Maharashtra for necessary action - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1384 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2018 - MR. M.S.SANKLECHA AND SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar For The Respondent : Mr. Nishant Thakkar with Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala i/by PDS Legal, Advocates ORDER P.C: 1 This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act) challenges the order dated 28.1.2015 of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arable for the purposes of determining ALP of the Appellant's services to its AE's as under: ( i) EZest Solutions Ltd. (a) On facts the Tribunal placed reliance upon the order of its coordinate bench in the case of M/s. Symphony Services (Pune) Private Ltd., Pune rendered on 30.4.2014 for Assessment Year 200809 itself. It was found that M/s. EZest Solutions Ltd. is rendering Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) services. Therefore, not comparable to software development service being rendered by the Assessee therein as being rendered also by RespondentAssessee herein. (b) No distinguishing features in this case to that of M/s. Symphony Services (Pune) Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) are pointed out either before the Tribunal or be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mparable to the RespondentAssessee. There is also absence of Segmental Accounts which makes the comparison skewed. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal relies upon the decision of its Coordinate Bench at Mumbai in NetHawk Networks India Pvt. Ltd. rendered on 6.11.2003 in respect of subject assessment year where M/s. NetHawk was performing same functions as the RespondentAssessee herein and it records the fact that TPO on enquiry from the Chartered Accountant of Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. found that it is engaged in providing data cleaning services to its clients for whom it had developed the software application. (b) Besides, the impugned order also holds that M/s. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. has adopted pricing model of fixed price pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Ltd. and the Respondent herein are not functionally comparable as they are engaged in different activities. In support the RespondentAssessee placed reliance upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in M/s.NetHawk Networks (P) Ltd. (Supra). The Revenue has not shown any challenge to it. In the above view, we have no reason to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal in excluding M/s Bodhtree Consulting (P) Ltd. from the list of comparables. ( iv) FCS Software Solutions Ltd. (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal excluded M/s. FCS Software Solutions Ltd. from the list of comparables in view of its abnormally high profit margin for the subject Assessment Year at 57.02% as compared to operating pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in law. Thus, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. 6 However, before closing, we would like to record the fact that we find that the Revenue is regularly filing appeals from the orders of the Tribunal in respect of Transfer Pricing particularly with regard to exclusion and inclusion of certain companies as comparables to determine ALP of tested parties. These appeals are being filed in a ritualistic manner. This results in the orders of the Tribunal which are essentially findings of fact in respect of exclusion/inclusion of a comparable being challenged without pointing out in any manner perversity of finding or failure to adhere to the settled principles of law while determining comparables such as Rule 10B of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
