9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was different from that of the respondent/assessee. According to the Tribunal, Cosmic Global Ltd outsourced a major part of its business and that in the relevant period, it had registered abnormal profit. According to us, these are findings of fact which cannot be termed as perverse. Even otherwise, we find that there is no question of law proposed by the appellant/revenue categorizing these findings as perverse. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Ashvini Kumar, Ms Madhavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purposes of computation of Arm s Length Price (ALP) vis- -vis international transactions. 9. Before we proceed further, we may also note that respondent/assessee had preferred cross objections against the CIT(A) s order dated 30.01.2017, with regard to working capital adjustment. 10. The perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal has remanded this issue to the Assessing Officer (AO). Evidently, qua this direction, the appellant/revenue is not agitated, as it does not form part of the instant appeal. 11. The record shows that in order to adjudicate the instant appeal, the following broad facts are required to be noticed: (i) The respondent/assessee is in the business of Information Technology enabled servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant/revenue, contended that insofar as the exclusion of Eclerx Services Ltd. and Coral Hub Ltd. is concerned, the approach taken by the Tribunal is covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of this court rendered in Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 377 ITR 533 (Del). 13. Mr Rai, however, submitted that as regards the other two comparables, i.e., Accentia Technology Ltd. and Cosmic Global Ltd, the Tribunal has misdirected itself on facts and in law. 13.1 It is Mr Rai s contention that there was functional similarity between the business of the respondent/assessee as well as the two comparables i.e., Accentia Technology Ltd. and Cosmic Global Ltd. 14. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orizing these findings as perverse. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 20. At this stage, Mr Rai says that insofar as the decision of coordinate bench in Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. is concerned, an appeal has been preferred with the Supreme Court, which is pending adjudication. 21. Needless to add, if the appellant/revenue were to succeed in the appeal pending before the Supreme Court, they could then approach the court in accordance with the law insofar as the above-captioned appeal is concerned. 22. The appeal is accordingly closed. 23. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
