9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies as comparables in determining the ALP in Transfer Pricing cases. Hon ble Karnataka High Court, however, in the case of Obopay Mobile Technology ( 2018 (7) TMI 2129 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] having noticed the view taken by case Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), and also the decision of M/s. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), upheld the Tribunal order excluding certain entities from the list of comparables on the ground of huge turnover, while following the principle that where two views are possible on an issue, the view favourable to the assessee has to be adopted. Thus, we hold that the turnover is a relevant criteria for choosing companies as comparables in determining the ALP in Transfer Pricing cases. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of M.A.No. 21/2022 in M.A.No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 by order dated 10/01/2022 held that in cases, where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15/03/2020 and 28/02/2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01/03/2022, and in the event of actual balance period of limitation remaining with effect from 01/03/2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. The limitation period applicable to this appeal, is covered by the above decision and, therefore, this appeal shall be treated as filed within the period of limitation. We, therefore, now shall pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Tata Elxsi Ltd., SDS Segment Rs. 1008.17 crores, respectively. 6. Basing on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 69 taxmann.com 180 followed in the case of Obopay Mobile Technology India Private Limited [TS-20-ITAT-2016 (Bang)-TP] for the assessment year 2010-11, PCIT vs. M/s. Obopay Mobile Technology India Private Ltd., in ITA No. 586/2016, dated 23/07/2018 and PCIT vs. New River Software Services (P) Ltd., (2017) 85 taxmann.com 302 (Delhi), learned AR submitted that the turnover is obviously a relevant factor to consider the comparability. 7. Nextly, he submitted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Acusis Software India (P) Ltd., vs. ITO (2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over is a relevant criteria for choosing companies as comparables in determining the ALP in Transfer Pricing cases. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, however, in the case of Obopay Mobile Technology (supra), having noticed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), and also the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), upheld the Tribunal order excluding certain entities from the list of comparables on the ground of huge turnover, while following the principle that where two views are possible on an issue, the view favourable to the assessee has to be adopted. 10. In these circumstances, following the foot prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
