9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 2012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equires carrying out of FAR analysis to find the same. Assessee's submission in arriving at the ALP is not final. It is for the TPO to examine and find out the companies listed as comparables which are, in fact comparable. Appeal is dismissed. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1815 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2019 - Akil Kureshi And Sarang V. Kotwal , JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar For the Respondents : Mr. B.M. Chatterji, Senior Advocate with Shreyas and Vishesh Srivastav with Pritesh Chatterji i/b. Girish Pikale. ORDER P.C. This appeal is filed by the revenue to challenge the judgement of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal for short). Following questions are presented for our consideration:- (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e discussion therefore, these questions are not entertained. 3] The sole surviving question relates to the determination of arms length price in case of respondent assessee. The focal issue relates to excluding one M/s. Bodhtree Consulting Limited. Brief facts are that in the arms length price determination, the assessee had itself included the said entity viz., Bodhtree Consulting as one of the comparables. The transfer pricing officer TPO proceeded on such basis and gave his report which included Bodhtree Consulting as one of the comparables. Before the Tribunal, the assessee took a stand that Bodhtree consulting was not a comparable and while determining the arms length price the said entity should be excluded. The tribunal accepted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, as contained at page 72 of the assessee s paper book for Y 2009-10. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant portion thereof; application development includes testing, application building quality assurance, program assembly and product release. A plain reading of the above sentence belies the department s contention. Reading this sentence as it is shows that it concerns the components of application development only and product release is but one such component. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, either in the TPR or elsewhere in the record, this argument of the Ld. DR is unsustainable and is rejected. 25(c) Besides, the TPO s order does not record any finding that the assessee is a product manufacturin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... context of similar controversy the court has observed as under:- 3(c) By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the respondent assessee s appeal. It held that merely because an assessee has included M/s. Indowind Energy Ltd. And B.F. Utilities Ltd. In itslist of comparables to determine the ALP would not by itself estop a party from establishing that these companies are not comparable. The impugned order found that the two comparables viz., M/s. Indowind Energy Ltd. And B.F. Utilities Ltd., were engaged in completely different line of business i.e. generation of wind energy while the respondent assessee is engaged in generation of solar energy. Thus, not functionally comparable. In the above view, the impugned order on the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
