9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stored back to the file of AO. Considering these facts along with the entire facts of the present case, we find that there is no apparent mistake in the Tribunal order which can be rectified u/s. 254(2) Comparable selection - Tribunal discussed regarding comparables of ITES segment without giving final finding in respect of IT segment - HELD THAT:- We find that there is apparent mistake in this para of Tribunal order and hence, we rectify the same. Para 13 of impugned Tribunal order should be read as under - Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts. Therefore, respectfully following these two tribunal orders, we hold that the four comparables i.e. 1) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., 2) Tata Elxsi Ltd., 3) Persistent Sy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 dated 06.03.2018 in case of IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, it was held by Tribunal that even if this is the finding of the Tribunal that the order of DRP is cryptic, it is not necessary that in all such cases, the matter has to be restored back to the file of DRP and not to AO/TPO and therefore, in a given case, if the matter may is restored back to the file of AO/TPO, there is no apparent mistake in the Tribunal order. He submitted copy of this Tribunal order. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce para no. 3 of the Tribunal order in the case of IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (supra). The same is as under. "3. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the present appeal has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Tribunal order that in all the cases where order of DRP is cryptic, the matter should be remanded back to the file of DRP only and not to AO / TPO. Hence this judgment does not help the assessee in support of its contention that there is apparent mistake in the Tribunal order because the matter was not restored back to the file of DRP but was restored back to the file of AO. Considering these facts along with the entire facts of the present case, we find that there is no apparent mistake in the Tribunal order which can be rectified u/s. 254(2) of the IT Act." 4. From the above Para of the Tribunal order, it is seen that this cannot be said that there is an apparent mistake in the Tribunal order only because the matter is restored ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al finding, the Tribunal has decided that no interference is called for in the order of DRP regarding exclusion of four comparables in respect of IT segment but regarding exclusion of four comparables in ITES segment, the Tribunal approved the exclusion of four comparables as requested by the assessee. He submitted that when the Tribunal has followed the other Tribunal orders as per which exclusion of these four comparables of ITES segment are approved but there is apparent mistake in the finding of Tribunal order regarding holding that no interference is called for in the order of DRP regarding exclusion of four comparables in respect of IT segment and it should be rectified. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
