9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n short the Act). 2. To be precise enough, we note at the outset that the Revenue's substantive grounds raised in its appeal ITA No. 553/Pun/2020 challenge correctness of the lower appellate findings inter-alia excluding M/s. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. and Kals Information Systems Ltd. and including M/s. Quintegra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd.; respectively, from the array of comparables thereby rejecting the Transfer Pricing Officer (TOP)'s stand to the contrary. The assessee's cross objection CO No. 18/Pun/2022, on the other hand, pleads that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and facts in excluding M/s. Thirdware Solutions Pvt. Ltd. from the list of comparables in issue. 3. We have given our thoughtf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly. However, the assessee argued vehemently stating that this company is engaged in the software based products. Further, Ld Counsel mentioned that the said company was already examined and was held as product based company by the TPO in the TP study of other case and the TPO cannot take different stand in this case. In this regard, we have perused the para 29 of the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Wills Processing Services (I) P Ltd (supra) wherein it was mentioned that the TPO described this company is engaged in the business of software products, not the software development services. Relevant portions from the said para 29 of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced here under: "29.1 The Id Sr Counsel for the assessee has sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g data cleaning services to clients for whom it had developed the software application........." 23. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that Bodhtree Consulting Limited is not engaged in the software development services and there is no segmental data comparable. Therefore, the FAR analysis goes against the TPO/AO. Accordingly, we dismiss the argument of the Ld DR in this regard. Ex consequenti, the AO/TPO is directed to exclude the same from the list of final comparables for working out the arithmetic mean." 5. The factual position is very much similar regarding the second entity herein M/s. Kals Information System Ltd. as follows: - "26. In this regard, Sri Lohia, Ld Counsel for the assessee argues that this company is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared at the taxpayer's behest. He further referred to assessee's twin paper books pages 249 and 254 (regarding M/s. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd.) and pages 285 and 287 (relating to M/s. Kals Information Systems Ltd.) that these twin entities had indeed derived revenue from provision for software development services only. 7. All these Revenue's arguments failed to evoke our concurrence. This is for the reason that not only the learned coordinate bench's findings stand upheld in the hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision PCIT v. Barclays Technology Centre India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 138/ 305 CTR 193 /171 DTR 58 (Bom.) (HC)but also the corresponding financials referred at it's behest hardly prove M/s. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
