9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Services Limited and Khandwala Securities Limited and the rejected comparables were IDFC Investment Advisors Ltd., Sumedha Fiscal Services Limited and Future Capital Holdings Limited. Clearly therefore none of the comparables involved was a giant corporation like Infosys. Consequently, this Court is not persuaded that the ITAT erred in the present case in excluding Infosys BPO Limited relying on the decision of this Court in Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Court has with the help of the chart produced by Mr. Hossain examined the facts in relation to each of the nine other comparables including TCS E-Serve International Limited. This Court is not persuaded to hold that the ITAT erred in law in excluding them f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by OKS is categorized as BPO service. 4. It requires to be noted that against the order of the ITAT in relation to the same Assessee for AY 2009-2010 by which the ITAT excluded many of the comparables, which stand excluded even in the impugned order, the Revenue had filed ITA No. 789/2017 in this Court. This Court upheld the order of the ITAT and dismissed the appeal by order dated 9th October 2017 both on delay as well as on merits. 5. The Revenue urges that of the ten excluded comparables, the ITAT ought not to have excluded Infosys BPO Limited only on the basis of its earlier order for AY 2009-2010 since in that earlier order the ITAT had wrongly proceeded on the basis that the said comparable had to be excluded on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This court proposes to take up the latter decision first for discussion. In Agnity (supra), the revenue had questioned, inter alia, the ITAT decision to exclude the data relating to Infosys. One of the reasons was that the said company was a giant corporation and was involved in multifarious activities. After reproducing the comparative chart and noticing the facts, the Court reasoned as follows: 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the Tribunal after recording the aforesaid table has not affirmed or given any finding on the differences. This is partly correct as the Tribunal has stated that Infosys Technologies Ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparables for the reason latter was a giant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
