9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dified grounds of appeal are raised by the assessee : 03. In this appeal, our attention was drawn by AR to para 6.5 to 6.9 of the DRP order, which is to the following effect : 6.5 We have considered the assessee's objections carefully. The TPO has rejected the selection of comparable cases chosen by the assessese for the detailed reasons given in the TP order. The assessee is not agitated over the consideration of turnover as the benchmark. However, the assessee objects to the consideration of the following 6 cases on the ground that they are functionally different from the assessee: 6.6 The objections of the assessee for excluding the cases given in the first table and for including the cases in the second table have merit in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons should also be directed to be considered by the DRP. 05. The Ld. DR relies on the orders of the lower authorities. 06. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Para 13 to 13.3 of the DRP for AY 2008-2009 reads as under : 13) Ground of Objection - 9 : The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, by accepting / rejecting certain companies based on unreasonable comparability criteria. 13.1 The learned TPO has excluded the following companies as comparables for SWD despite the fact that the said companies satisfy the comparability criteria. Comparables retained by the TPO which according to the assessee are to be rejected : 13.2 We considered the grounds of objection raised b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore, upheld the TPOs PU to the extent of 20% and granted relief only at 0.68% on grounds not related to the comparables taken by the TPO. in the case of the assessee also for the AY 2006-07 , Infosys Technologies Ltd., was considered as a on record how such functional difference and risk has influenced the result of the comparable by the TPO. Thus, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble ITAT,Bangalore, may be said to be applicable to the assessee also In a recent case of Syniantec Software Solutions Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT , the Hon'ble ITAT,Mumbai, (2011TU60lTATMUMTP) considered the application of turnover filter and risk adjustment and held that unless and until it is brought on record that the turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -09, it is clear that the DRP had passed a cryptic order and had not specifically decided the ground raised by the assessee with respect to each of the comparables and had only decided the functional comparability of Infosys. We may also point out that the DRP in para 6.5 has mentioned that the assessee has objected to six comparables. However the DRP had only mentioned four comparables in the table below para 6.5, whereas the objection was raised in respect of six comparables. This also shows the total nonapplication of mind by the DRP. 08. In view of the above the order passed by the DRP is cryptic, stereotyped and is without any reasoning. In fact the DRP has followed the reasoning given by the TPO without any discretions of the objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
