TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As the issues arising in both the appeals are common, for the sake of convenience, they heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. 2. The facts are giving in paras 2, to 2.3 of the TPO order, which is extracted for ready reference: "2. Taxpayer's profile 2.1 Name The assessee, Green Filed Online Pvt. Ltd. is primarily engaged in providing contract IT and related services to Greenfield Online Inc. USA (Greenfield US). During FY 2007-08, the taxpayer has also provided marketing support services. 2.2 Segmental Financial Results of the taxpayer for the FY 2007-08 Particulars Software development Market Support Services Operating Revenues 216,533,544 1,589,732 Operating Expenses 188,195,099 1,471,974 Operati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t IT services and provision of marketing support services. 3. The Ld. TPO grossly erred in not considering the correct Operating Profit/ Total Cost ('OP/TC') margins of specific comparable companies with respect to the Appellant's international transaction of provision of contract IT services, despite the fact that the correct computations of OP/TC margins of the said comparable companies were duly submitted by the Appellant before the Ld. TPO in accordance with the directions of the Ld. DRP and the same were also duly checked and verified by the Ld. TPO. 4. The Ld. AO/Ld. DRP erred both on facts and in law in enhancing the income of the Appellant by Rs. 20,039,621/- by holding that its international transactions of provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed with respect to the Appellant's international transactions of provision of contract IT services and provision of marketing support services; 4.6 excluding certain companies on arbitrary / frivolous grounds even though they were comparable to the Appellant in terms of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed with respect to the Appellant's international transactions of provision of contract IT services and provision of marketing support services; 4.7 considering foreign exchange fluctuations as operating in nature while calculating the OP/TC margins of certain comparables for determining the ALP of the Appellant's international transactions of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the ITAT in its earlier year order, should also be excluded by the T.P.O. in the present T.P. order. 6. Ld. Standing Counsel opposed this contention without distinguishing the order of the ITAT for the earlier assessment year. 7. From the perusal of the order-sheet entry, it is clear that a copy of the Tribunal's order in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding year was given to Standing Counsel on 18.03.2015. The Standing Counsel could not submit as to why the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment year should not be followed. He could not demonstrate that there is difference in the facts for both the years. Under these circumstances, we respectfully follow the order of the coordina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to raise these grounds in other assessment year. 10. In view of above submission, we do not deal with all the other ground of the assessee and dismiss the same as not argued in the present proceedings. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. 12. ITA No. 989/Del/2014 pertains to the AY 2009-10, here also the dispute is regarding selection of comparables by the TPO. The other issue is grant of "working capital adjustment". 13. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Rohit Tiwari submits that he would press the argument that "Infosys Technologies Ltd." should be eliminated as a comparable by following the preposition laid down in the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case in ITA No. 5645/Del/2011 for the AY 2007-08 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|