Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1426 - ITAT BANGALOREDeduction u/s 10A - exclusion of the expenditure incurred in foreign currency from the export turnover for the purpose of computing the deduction under Section 10A - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Others [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] had held that while computing the exemption u/s 10A, if the export turnover in the numerator is to be arrived at after excluding certain expenses, the same should also be excluded from the total turnover in the denominator. We direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude the above mentioned expenses both from the export turnover as well as from the total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A. Deduction under Section 10A without setting off of loss incurred by the non-STPI unit - HELD THAT:- substituted/amended provisions of sec.10A/10B which are applicable in the case of the assessee as well as the decision of the Tribunal in case of Biocon [2014 (12) TMI 838 - ITAT BANGALORE], we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and direct the AO to allow deduction u/s 10A without setting off the domestic losses. Transfer Pricing Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Assessee is engaged in developing, testing and software solution for group companies as well as for marketing services and solution in India for manufacturing and hospitality industry thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list. Applying a fixed slab of turnover gives absurd results of comparability however the Tribunal has taken a view that the turnover in any case can be considered as a parameter / criteria for deciding the comparability but the proper yardstick would be a range of multiples of turnover of the tested party on both sides. Company following different financial year ending on 31.12.2006 - the financial data is not relating to the same period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007. Since the contemporaneous data are not available in respect of this company as provided under Rule 10B(4) of the IT Rules, therefore, we are of the view that this company cannot be considered as a good comparable for want of contemporaneous financial data to be compared with the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer / TPO to exclude this company from the list of comparables Since we have excluded various companies from the list of comparables selected by the TPO, accordingly, the A.O/TPO is directed to recompute the ALP from the remaining set of comparables and after considering the benefit of provision to section 92C regarding tolerance range of + or – 5%.
|