9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany not falling within the said range should be excluded on turnover filter. L T Infotech Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd AND Mindtree Ltd are directed to be excluded from the list of comparables following above ruling. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T(TP).A No.1826/Bang/2016 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2017 - Shri. Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member And Shri. S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member Assessee by : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CA Revenue by : Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT DR-I ORDER S. Jayaraman, This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s. 143(3) rw 144C dt.25.08.2016 by the AO, in pursuance of the directions of the DRP, for the assessment year 2012-13. 02. M/s. Aptean Software India P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds : a) Reference made to the TPO is bad in law as the assessing officer ought to have provided an opportunity of being heard to the appellant before making reference. b) Copy of the approval by the Commissioner and the basis of the same if any is not communicated to the appellant, c) The authorities below erred in rejecting the comparables of the appellant Mithout giving any cogent reasons. d) The authorities erred in not eliminating the comparables having turnover more than ₹ 200 Crores. e) The Authorities erred in including companies which are giants when compared to the appellant and hence erred in retaining the following companies from the list of comparable selected by the TP() in case of Software Developmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WDS needs to be accepted on the facts of the case. 5. Hold that the action of the Assessing Officer, T PO and DRP in rejecting the comparables selected by the appellant is not in accordance with law. 6. Hold that the authorities below erred in selecting comparable companies with turnover / assets far higher than that of the appellant resulting in an illogical comparison of financial data. 7. Hold that the authorities erred in selecting those comparables which are functionally dissimilar to the assessee company. 8. Hold that the authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant being a captive service provider runs a 'single customer risk' when compared to companies selected as comparables which function in open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al decision in its own case for ay 2008-09 reported in 60 Taxmann.com 49, ITO v. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design P. Ltd in IT(TP)A.28/Bang/2002, dt.31.03.2016. On turnover filter, the AR relied on ACIT v. Mcafee India P. Ltd 68 Taxmann.com 298 (Bang-Trib). Further, the AR sought exclusion on functional dissimilarity also based on this Tribunal decision in Cisco Systems (India) P. Ltd v. DCIT -50 Taxmann.com 280 , ay . 2009-10 and Saxo India P. Ltd v. ACIT -176 TTJ 540 (Del), DCIT v. Electronics for Imaging India P. Ltd 70 taxmann.com 299 (Bang-Trib), a y . 2010-11. Thus, the AR sought rejection of the comparables both on functional dissimilarity as well as on turnover filter. 04. Earlier, the ITAT had accepted the turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
