9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld.CIT-DR ORDER Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): - 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years [in short referred to as AY ] 2010-11 2011-12 primarily contest certain Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustments made in final assessment orders of those years. Since identical issues are involved, we proceed to dispose-off the appeals by way of this common order for the sake of convenience brevity. ITA No.2658/Mum/2015, AY 2010-11 2.1 This appeal contest TP adjustments made in final assessment order dated 31/12/2014 passed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 14(3)(1) (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to the directions of Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rable companies. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to consider the international transaction of the Appellant as arm's length and accordingly the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 2,79,79,018 should be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in granting short credit of tax deducted at source of ₹ 31,03,807 (Tax deducted at source of ₹ 4,57,24,375 was claimed in the by the Appellant in the return of income, out of which the learned AO has granted credit for only ₹ 4,26,20,568). The Appellant prays that the learned AO be directed to grant full credit for the tax deduced at source claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. The above gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd.; (iv) Wipro Ltd.(segment). Further, 2 entities viz. Crazy Infotech Ltd. and Reliance Info Solutions Ltd. as selected by the assessee, were rejected. 2.4 Accordingly, adopting comparable matrix of 18 entities, Ld. TPO recomputed mean margin of 22.76% and thus, proposed adjustment of ₹ 279.79 Lacs against these transactions which were subjected to objections before Ld. DRP. 2.5 Before Ld. DRP, the assessee furnished additional evidences assailing the proposed adjustments, however, the same could not find favor of Ld. TPO in the remand proceedings. The assessee, while accepting the exclusion of 2 entities which were accepted by the assessee in the original matrix, objected to 4 comparable entities as freshly int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for same AY rendered in the case of other assessee under similar factual matrix and having similar functional profile. The Ld. DR submitted that final set of comparable would not require any interference on our part. 4.1 We have duly considered the rival submissions, perused relevant material on record and deliberated on various judicial pronouncements as cited before us. As per the arguments advanced by Ld. AR, our findings shall be restricted to selection of 3 comparable entities only. 4.1.1 KALS Information Systems Ltd. The prime argument of Ld. AR revolves around the fact that this entity was engaged in software development as well as products and the segmental results relating to the aforesaid two segments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntity include revenue from licensing of products royalty which are in the nature of R D services and therefore, this entity could not be held to be comparable entity. Reliance has been placed on following decisions in support of submissions: - (i) CIT V/s Cashedge India P. Ltd. (Hon ble Delhi High Court ITA No. 279 of 2016, AY 2010-11) (ii) Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. V/s ITO (Mumbai Tribunal, ITA No. 668/Mum/2014, Ay 2010-11) (iii) DCIT V/s Electronics of imaging India (Bangalore Tribunal, ITA No. 212/Bang/2015, AY 2010-11) (iv) Dialogic Networks India P. Ltd. V/s ACIT (Mumbai Tribunal, ITA No.7280/Mum/2012 AY 2008-09) Since the revenue is unable to controvert these decisions, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal purposes. 4.4 The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order. ITA No.1126/Mum/2016, AY 2011-12 5.1 Facts are pari-materia the same in this AY as in AY 2010-11. The Ld. TPO, by disturbing the comparable matrix, has proposed TP adjustment of ₹ 331.46 Lacs. The stand of Ld. TPO, upon confirmation by Ld. DRP, is under appeal before us. Before us, Ld. AR has sought exclusion of 2 entities viz. (i) Infosys Technologies Ltd.; (ii) Wipro Ltd. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Tribunal in Ness Technologies India P. Ltd. V/s DCIT (188 TTJ 8 Mum) and Delhi Tribunal in the case of Agilent Technologies (I) Ltd. V/s ITO (91 Taxmann.com 59) for exclusion of these two entities. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
