2016 (9) TMI 1282 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

TPA - ALP determination - comparability selection - Held that:- This is a purely factual determination and the RPTs have to be considered in the context of total transactions and not by a conversion formula as adopted by the Assessing Officer. In fact, as recorded in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the determination of percentage of RPT as adopted by it is similar to the method adopted by the TPO in the earlier assessment years. It may be noted that an identical method as directed in the case of M/s. FCS Software Ltd. was also done in case of M/s. Compucom Ltd. by the Tribunal. However, the Revenue has made no grievance in case of the impugned order to the extent of M/s. Compucom Ltd. No reason for the same is also forthcoming.

KALS Ltd. and Helios & Matheson Ltd. are not comparable with the respondent assessee - No submissions were advanced justifying the order of the Assessing Officer that the services rendered by KALS Ltd. and Helios & Matheson Ltd. are comparable for the subject assessment year with that of the respondent assessee.

Transworks Information Services Ltd. (Transworks Ltd.) - the financial period during which the international transaction was entered into is different, M/s. Transwork Ltd. could not be treated as comparable and thus not includable as data to be used for comparability analysis should be of the same financial year in which the international transactions were entered into by the tested party.

Services rendered by M/s. Vishal Ltd. of KPO and LPO are inherently different from the nature of services being rendered by the BPO i.e. by the respondent assessee.

BPO operation by M/s. Galaxy Ltd. was similar to that rendered by the respondent assessee. In the above view, the Tribunal by the impugned order held that M/s. Galaxy Ltd. is a comparable and, therefore, includable in the list of comparable for comparability analysis.