9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of law. Thus, not entertained. Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Companies functionally dissimilar wit that of assessee need to be deselected from final list. Include the instance of one SIP Technology and Exports Limited in the set of comparables - HELD THAT:- In this context, the objection of the Revenue was that the said SIP Technology was a loss making company and therefore, had to be excluded. The Tribunal however, held that the Company was not constantly loss making Company. It had suffered losses only in one out of the last three years under consideration. The Tribunal therefore, refused to exclude the said Company from the list of comparables Deduction u/s 10A - allocation of expenditure between two units i.e. eli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books while claiming deduction under section 10A ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 10A of the IT Act on account of disallowances made u/s 40(a)(ia) and 43B of the IT Act, ignoring the facts that disallowance u/s 40a(ia) and 43B is not profits derived and related to manufacturing activities, for which the assessee has been claiming deduction u/s 10A of the IT Act ? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in law in excluding M/s. Bodhtree consulting Ltd., e-Zest Solutions Ltd., Helios, Matheson Information Tech, Kals Informatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instances of several companies mentioned in the question itself on various grounds. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment had come to the conclusion that these companies do not provide comparable instances. 6. Under similar circumstances, this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 V/s. Barclays Technology Centre India (P) Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.1384 of 2015 decided on 26th June, 2018) had occasion to test such conclusions of the Tribunal in relation to the following companies : Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd. and FCS Software Solutions Ltd. We further notice that in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., (Income Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was on this count that the Tribunal held that the said Company was functionally different from the assessee. No question of law therefore, arises. 11. With the sole surviving instance of Apitco Limited, the assessee pointed out that the said Company had abnormally high operating margin of 52% and that the same was also otherwise functionally different. The Tribunal concluded that looking to the activities of the assessee and the said Company, the same are at variance. The Tribunal held that the said Company was functionally different from that of the assessee. The Tribunal referred to and relied upon the earlier decision of similar instances. No question of law therefore, arises. 12. Coming to question (iv), it arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is issue in the entire decision. The Tribunal appears to have totally lost sight of this contentious issue. We would therefore, request the Tribunal to decide this ground of Appeal of the assessee confined to the question of allocation of operative expenses between assessee's two units i.e. eligible and non-eligible units for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. 14. For convenience, we may reproduce specific ground in Appeal that the assessee had taken in this regard : (i) Without prejudice to Ground Nos.4.3 and 4.4, the assessee submits that the learned DRP erred in apportioning the actual expenses incurred by individual units on turnover basis without appreciating that these expenses were pertaining to the indiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
