9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le deciding assessee s appeal in assessment year 2008-09 [ 2016 (6) TMI 1259 - ITAT DELHI] . Learned counsel appearing for the assessee has made a statement at bar that in assessment year 2014-15, the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP) has excluded Infosys Ltd. as a comparable. Whereas, in assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17, TPO himself did not consider Infosys Ltd. as a comparable. Thus, keeping in view the decision taken by the coordinate Benches in assessee s own cases in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and the further fact that the departmental authorities themselves have excluded Infosys Ltd. as a comparable in assessment year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 in assessee s own case, we decline to interfere with the decision of the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and qualifies all the filters applied by the TPO. 4. Whether the functional profile of the comparables must be same while making transfer pricing adjustments for the calculations of ALP under TNMM method. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in law to treat foreign exchange gain/loss as operating without considering the TPO s finding to consider foreign exchange gain/loss as nonoperating. 3. As could be seen from the grounds raised, the core issue is with regard to rejection of certain comparables as stated in ground No. 3. However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that out of the comparables disputed by the Revenue, if only one comparable, i.e., Infosys Ltd. is rejected even with inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the comparables selected was found to be within the tolerance range, the price charged for the transactions with AE was claimed to be at arm s length. However, the TPO did not accept the benchmarking of the assessee and proceeded to conduct his own analysis. In this process, he rejected some of the comparables selected by the assessee by introducing fresh comparables, one of them being Infosys Ltd. In accordance with the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order adding back the transfer pricing adjustment suggested by the TPO. The assessee contested the addition before the first appellate authority. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015-16 and 2016-17, the TPO himself did not consider Infosys Ltd. as a comparable. Thus, keeping in view the decision taken by the coordinate Benches in assessee s own cases in assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and the further fact that the departmental authorities themselves have excluded Infosys Ltd. as a comparable in assessment year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 in assessee s own case, we decline to interfere with the decision of the first appellate authority on the comparability of Infosys Ltd. 9. As regards the other comparables disputed by the Revenue, since, the issue has become academic, we leave the issue relating to comparability of other comparables open for consideration, in case, the dispute relating to their comparabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
