9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is headquartered in the United States of America and is engaged in the business of providing value added IT Solutions and IT staffing services to global companies including growing mid-tier firms. The Appellant claims that it is primarily engaged in the provision of contract software development ('CSD segment') and recruitment/manpower services. However, the present cases concern the issue of transfer pricing for its staffing segment. 3. For Assessment Year (AY) 2010-2011 the Assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 32,79,820/- and paid tax under section 115 JB on a book profit of Rs. 1,76,61,244/-. 4. The Assessing Officer ('AO') after noting that there were international transactions entered into by the Assessee with its Assoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision dated 3rd May 2016 of the ITAT itself in LG Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT where the same comparable i.e. HCCA had been excluded since it had a different functional profile from the Assessee in that case. It was pointed out that the said decision was not even discussed by the ITAT in its order dated 11th July 2018. 8. The said MA was dismissed by the ITAT by its order dated 25th March 2019. It is against the said order that W.P. (C) 5198/2019 has been filed by the Assessee. 9. Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the mere exclusion or inclusion of a comparable for the purposes of Transfer Pricing Adjustment does not give rise to any substantial question of law and this has been the settle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n LG Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. where it was held that a company owning intangibles cannot be compared with one which does not. Also, the order dated 25th March 2019 passed by the ITAT rejecting MA No.632 clearly notes that the agreements referred to in the audit report concerning HCCA were not before the ITAT. The ITAT appears to have overlooked the Assessee's objections to inclusion of HCCA which according to the Assessee was only providing pay roll processing services. The difference in functionality of the Assessee and HCCA was not discussed by the ITAT. 14. Since the entire TP Adjustment has hinged only on one comparable, viz., HCCA the objection to the inclusion of which by the Assessee required a detailed consideration, the Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
