9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icing of the international transaction undertaken by the assessee. Credit of tds - Held that:- We direct the AO/TPO to verify the claim of the assessee with regard to the tax deducted at source and allow credit if found correct. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d., as a good comparable. Relying on paper book page-371 learned AR submitted that M/s Accentia Technologies Ltd., was functionally different and this was pointed out to the DRP. As per the learned AR the Annual Report of the said company in its management discussion and analysis clearly mentioned that they were into health care and related services. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Novo Nordisk India Pvt.Ltd., Vs DCIT in IT(TP)A No.146(Bang)/2015 AY: 2010-11)dated 30-07-2015. As per learned AR the decision in the case of M/s Novo Nordisk India Pvt.Ltd., Vs DCIT (supra) was also for the very same assessment year and for the same segment viz., IT enabled services. According to him, the Co-ordinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent business strategy of acquiring companies for inorganic growth as its strategy. In earlier years on the reason of acquisition of some companies by that company may have impact on the profit. Considering the profit margins of the company and insufficient segmental data, we are of the opinion, that this company cannot be selected as a comparable. Moreover, this is also not a comparable in the case of M/s Mercer Consulting (Ind.) Pvt.Ltd (Supra), which indicates that the TPO therein has excluded it at outset. In view of this, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude this comparable, from the list of comparable selected". 13. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, there was acquisition of a company by M/s Accentia Echnologies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perceived unavailability of export turnover details, which are factually, incorrect, since the TPO failed to consider the information pertaining to segmental results and the foreign exchange earnings provided in the annual report of the said company, while computing the margin and applying the said filters". 7. Learned AR submitted that M/s Microland Ltd., was a comparable selected by the TPO. Assessee had never raised any objection to this comparable. However, as per the learned DR, the DRP suo-motto directed exclusion of this company from the list of comparables. As per the learned AR, the reason cited by the DRP was that its revenue from IT Enabled services were only 23% of its total revenue. Further, as per the learned AR the DRP erron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e companies selected as comparables by the TPO and not objected by the assessee was examined to arrive at a correct conclusion. It is noticed from the perusal of the Annual Report of Microland Ltd., (One of the comparables of the TPO) that out of the total revenue of ₹ 134.15 Crores, the revenue from ITES is only 31.37 Crores which works out to 23% of the total revenue. Hence, the company is not predominantly engaged in the ITES and therefore, cannot be retained as comparable. Further, there is no information available in regard to export earning and therefore, it cannot be ascertained as to whether it passes the filter of 75% export turnover and therefore, in our opinion, this company cannot be retained as comparable. The AO is accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ific issue of low volume of ITES segment as a ground for rejection of this company as a comparable in the substantive appeal, the assesssee cannot now raise this issue through a miscellaneous petition. The issue raised being beyond the scope of an M.P. as evident from the provisions of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1916 ('The Act') addressing the same in these proceeding would amount to a revision of our order dated 9.11.2012, which is not permissible. In this view of the matter, we dismiss this ground raised by the petitioner. Ultramarine Pigments Ltd., therefore, continues to be a comparable company as held in our order dated 9.11.2.012 in ITA No.227/Bang/2010". 9.3 Thus, when the demarcated segmental results are available in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
