Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1279 - AT - Income TaxTPA adjustment - selection of comparable - Held that:- Acropetal Technologies Ltd. is not functionally similar to the assessee. Therefore, on over all consideration of facts and materials on record, we are of the view that Acropetal Technologies Ltd. cannot be treated as a comparable to the assessee. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. - looking at the activities carried on by this company, it is evident, though, it has reported only one segment, namely, software development but it is involved in various activities including product development. However, it has not done segmental accounting for each of the activities. We have further noted that for the reason that the aforesaid company is involved in product development the Tribunal in the decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative has excluded this company as a comparable. As these decisions of the Tribunal are for the very same assessment year, respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal in case of other assessees, we exclude this company as a comparable. Kals Information Systems Ltd. - in absence of segmental details of the revenue earned, the company cannot be treated as comparable to the assessee Soft Sol Ltd. - prima-facie assessee’s claim appears to be correct as the RPT as a percentage of total sales works out to 60.93%. That being the case, the company under no circumstances can be treated as a comparable to the assessee. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify this aspect and exclude this company from the list of comparables. Disallowance of provisions of expenditure - Held that:- Assessing Officer has disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction of professional fees, on the ground that it is in the nature of provision and secondly, the assessee has not deducted tax at source. However, it is the contention of the assessee before us that the amount in question has been offered as income in the subsequent assessment year i.e., A.Y. 2010-11. If the assessee has already offered the amount in dispute as income in assessment year 2010-11, it cannot be taxed twice. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify assessee’s claim and if it is found that the amount of ₹ 2,53,936 has been offered as income by the assessee in assessment year 2010-11 no disallowance of the said amount should be made in the impugned assessment year. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
|