9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal which are as under : The assessee has also filed the revised grounds of appeal corresponding to the original grounds of appeal as above : 02. At the out set, the Ld. AR has submitted that assessee is not pressing ground nos,1 to 9, 17 and 19 and is only pressing ground nos.10 to 16 and 18. As the assessee has not pressed the ground nos.1 to 9, 17 and 19, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 03. Before we deal with ground nos.10 to 16 and 18, we may give a brief background of the assessee's profile and the history of the assessment proceedings. The assessee filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,39,98,201/-. Notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued and thereafter the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the matter of M/s. AT & T Global Business Services India P. Ltd v. ACIT [IT(TP)A.190/Bang/2016, dt.31.08.2016 for AY 2011-12], had decided the issue of exclusion merely on the basis of the RPT filter. However the consistent view of the Tribunal is that if the RPT is less than 25% and the number of comparables are less than six, then RPT of 25% is correct, whereas if the number of comparables selected or remained after the exclusion by the DRP continues to be more than six, then the RPT of 15% is correct. This view was taken by the coordinate bench in the matter of ACI Worldwide Solutions (P.) Ltd.* [2017] 84 taxmann.com 216 (Bengaluru - Trib.) "Therefore, keeping the abovesaid in mind, for many years, the RPT filter had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 2. E-infochips Ltd 3. Infosys ltd 4. Persistent Systems Ltd 5. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd 6. Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg) 08. WITH regard to exclusion of these six comparables our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the decision of the coordinate bench in the matter of M/s. AT & T Global Business Services India P. Ltd (supra), wherein the Tribunal after considering the annual report and functional profile of this company had directed to exclude these companies . For ready reference, we are reproducing para 5 & 6 of the order : 5. We have considered the rival submissions, gone through the orders of the lower authorities and the judgments cited by the learned AR of the assessee. Various grounds not pressed by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg) is covered in favour of the assessee by the same tribunal order rendered in the case of Applied materials India Pvt. Ltd. vs. AC1T (Supra). Respectfully following the same, we uphold its exclusion. Exclusion of 1) e Zest Solutions Ltd., 2) Infosys Ltd., 3) Larsen & Toubro infotech Ltd., 4) Persistent Systems & Solutions 5) Persistent Systems Ltd. , 6) Sasken Communicat ion Technologies Ltd. and 7) Tata Elxsi Ltd. are also covered in favour of the assessee by the same tribunal Order rendered in the case of .Applied materials India Nt. Ltd vs ACJT (Supra) Respectfully following the same we uphold the exclusion of these Seven comparables also. Exclusion of E Infochips Ltd. is covered in favour of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lower authorities. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The functional profile of the assessee is similar to that of the assessee in the matter of AT & T Gobal Business Services India P. Ltd (supra) and the same list of comparables were selected by the TPO in both the matters. Once the coordinate bench has taken a view in identical circumstances to exclude the above six comparables, therefore we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. More particularly when DR had not brought to our notice a contrary facts or dissimilarity. Following the decision of the coordinate bench in AT & T Gobal Business Services India P. Ltd (supra), we allow ground nos. 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 . The TPO is directed to excl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orking to the lower authorities. In the absence of the necessary details / data, it is not possible for the lower authorities to adjudicate the claim of working capital adjustment. 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The TPO has adopted the TNMM for the purpose of determining the ALP and as per the mandate of law and Rules framed the assessee is required to work out the working capital adjustment with a view to weed out the dissimilarity between the assessee and the comparables. The Rules provide that the working capital adjustment is required to be made on the basis of the actual so as to remove abrasion or distortion in the profit earned by the assessee. 15. In the present case lower authority had worked ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
