9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anarayana, Adv. for Respondent Assessee. JUDGMENT S. SUJATHA, J., This Appeal is filed by the Revenue purportedly raising substantial questions of law arising from the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench A , Bangalore, in IT[TP]A No.1722/Bang/2013 dated 25.07.2016, relating to the Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The appeal has been admitted on 13.12.2017 to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in adopting 15% as RPT Filter by following its earlier decisions which have not reached finality even though the TPO rightly held that 25% RPT filter is to be considered as fair by drawing an analogy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were unreliable. In so far as Infosys Technologies Ltd, assessee had contended before the CIT (A) that its turnover was far in excess of that of the assessee which had a turnover was only ₹ 6.97 crores in the software development segment. Once assessee had taken grounds seeking exclusion of certain companies before the CIT (A) in our opinion, even if such companies appeared in the TP study of the assessee itself, CIT (A) having adjudicated and decided on such ground against the assessee, assessee cannot be precluded from seeking exclusion of such companies before the Tribunal. However, in so far as Bodhtree Consulting Ltd, is concerned, not only was the said company in the list of assessee, but we find that assessee had not conteste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany has been placed before us at paper book page 747. It does mention that there was an amalgamation of that company with one M/s. Holool India Ltd, with effect from 01.04.2004. In the notes to accounts, placed at paper book page 767, it is clearly mentioned that amalgamation was come into effect from 31.03.2004. Thus the profits of the said company could have been skewed because of the amalgamation factor. In the case of Symbol Technologies India P. Ltd, (supra), this Tribunal had held as under at para 14 of its order, which is reproduced hereunder : xxxxx Accordingly we direct exclusion of Extensys Software Solutions Ltd. 28. Coming to the case of Sankhya Infotech Ltd, argument of the assessee is that it was engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India P. Ltd, (supra). In its order dt.25.05.2016, it was held as under at para 9.1 of the order : xxxxx Following the above decision, we direct exclusion of Thirdware Solutions Ltd, from the list of comparables. 31. Coming to Geometric Software Solutions Co. Ltd, case of the assessee is that its RPT exceeded 15% and was doing software product work also. We find that the issue of comparability of Geometric Software Solutions Co. Ltd, had come up before this Tribunal in the case of Net Devices India P. Ltd, (supra). It was held as under in its order dt.25.05.2016 : xxxxx Tribunal had given a finding that 15% RPT filter was proper threshold in the case of Net Devices India P. Ltd, (supra). Further in the case bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew, though the annual report of the company placed by assessee at paper book page 1210 does not clearly indicate whether the said company was into software products segment only. Judicial discipline requires us to follow the decision of a coordinate bench unless it has taken a view which is not a possible one. In the circumstances we direct exclusion of Visual soft Technologies Ltd, (seg) from the list of comparables. 34. Coming to Flextronics Ltd, (seg), we find that comparability of the said company was an issue which came up before the coordinate bench in the case of Net Devices India P. Ltd, (supra). It was held by the coordinate bench as under in its order dt.25.05.2016 : xxxxx Accordingly we direct exclusion of Flext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in I.T.A. Nos.536/2015 c/w 537/2015 dated 25.06.2018 [Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax Anr. V/s. M/s.Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd.,] wherein it has been observed that unless the finding of the Tribunal is found ex facie perverse, the Appeal u/s. 260-A of the Act, is not maintainable. The relevant portion of the Judgment is quoted below for ready reference: Conclusion: 55. A substantial quantum of international trade and transactions depends upon the fair and quick judicial dispensation in such cases. Had it been a case of substantial question of interpretation of provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaties (DTAA), interpretation of provisions of the Income Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
