9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work. Thus, the business model of the company is totally different from the assessee. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the Tribunal in Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd. [ 2018 (3) TMI 1588 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has excluded this company as a comparable. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the decision cited supra. Since the aforesaid decisions are for the very same assessment year, respectfully following them, we hold that the Coral Hubs Ltd. was rightly rejected as a comparable. e Clerx Services Ltd - it is seen that during the year under consideration, it has acquired a U.K. based company which has not only provided a large existing customer base in Europe, but by virtue of such acquisition, the company has been provided a platform in the European market to expand its business. Thus, the aforesaid acquisition during the year certainly has impacted the profitability of the company which is evident from the super normal profit earned by it during the year. Considering the aforesaid factual aspect, the Tribunal in Goldman Sachs Pvt. Ltd. [ 2015 (4) TMI 911 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Hyundai Motors India Engineering Pvt. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the margin of the comparables requiring no further adjustment, assessee was advised not to file any appeal or cross objection initially. However, subsequently, on professional advice, assessee filed the present cross objections challenging the decision of DRP in categorizing the assessee as a KPO service provider. 3. He submitted, since non filing of cross objections was due to bona fide reasons, delay should be condoned. In support, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in DBS Bank Ltd. v/s DDIT, C.O. no.189/Mum./2013, dated 15th June 2016. 4. Smt. Nilu Jaggi, the learned Departmental Representative, opposed condonation of delay. 5. Having considered rival submissions, we are of the view that the delay in filing the present cross objections is due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the cross objections for adjudication on merit. ITA no.594/Mum./2015 Revenue s Appeal A.Y. 2008 09 6. The grievance of the Revenue in the present appeal is against the decision of the DRP in excluding following three comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Regarding e Clerx Services Ltd., the learned Departmental Representative submitted, this company is showing high profit consistently from the assessment year 2008 09 onwards. Therefore, there is no abnormality in the high profit margin shown by the company. She submitted, even in the subsequent assessment years also, the DRP has accepted it as a comparable. Thus, she submitted, the company should be included as comparable. 10. The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee strongly relying upon the observations of learned DRP submitted, Coral Hubs Ltd., cannot be treated as a comparable, as it does not provides service itself, but it does so by outsourcing which is evident from low personnel cost. Thus, he submitted, the business model of the company being completely different from the assessee, it cannot be treated as a comparable. He submitted, for the very same reason, the Tribunal as well as the High Court in various cases have excluded this company as a comparable. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd. v/s DDIT, [2015] 53 taxmann.com 492 (Pn.); ii) CIT v/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Turbo Technologies Ltd. (supra) has excluded this company as a comparable. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the decision cited supra. Since the aforesaid decisions are for the very same assessment year, respectfully following them, we hold that the Coral Hubs Ltd. was rightly rejected as a comparable. 14. As regards e Clerx Services Ltd., it is seen that during the year under consideration, it has acquired a U.K. based company which has not only provided a large existing customer base in Europe, but by virtue of such acquisition, the company has been provided a platform in the European market to expand its business. Thus, the aforesaid acquisition during the year certainly has impacted the profitability of the company which is evident from the super normal profit earned by it during the year. Considering the aforesaid factual aspect, the Tribunal in Goldman Sachs Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Hyundai Motors India Engineering Pvt. Ltd., has excluded this company as a comparable. Since the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal are for the very same assessment year and there is no material diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA no.595/Mum./2015 Revenue s Appeal A.Y. 2010 11 And C.O. no.65/Mum./2016 By Assessee (Arising out of Revenue s appeal in ITA no.595/Mum./2015) 19. In this appeal also, the Revenue has challenged the decision of learned DRP in excluding three companies viz. (i) Coral Hubs Ltd. (ii) e Clerx Services Ltd. and (iii) Mould Tech Technologies Ltd. 20. The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, learned DRP relying upon its own decision in assessment year 2008 09 has excluded the above three companies and has not decided various other grounds raised by the assessee under a misconception that upon exclusion of these three companies, the margin shown by the assessee would come within the range of 5% of the margin of rest of the comparables. He submitted, the aforesaid finding of learned DRP is factually incorrect, as even after exclusion of these three companies, assessee s margin would not come within 5% of the margin of the rest of the comparables. Therefore, the other grounds left undecided by learned DRP requires adjudication. Further, he submitted, the Revenue has also filed a Misc. Application before learned DRP seeking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
