TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA SANDEEP K. SHINDE,JJ Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant. Mr. Madhur Agrawal i/b. Mr. Atul Jasani, for the Respondent. P.C: This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 31st October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 31st October, 2014 is in respect of Assessment Year 200910. 2 Revenue urges only the following questions of law, for our consideration: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in excluding KALs Information Solutions Ltd., from the list of comparables on the basis of previous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that being aggrieved by the order dated 30th April, 2013 of the Tribunal, in respect of Assessment Year 200708, the Respondent had preferred an Appeal to this Court being Income Tax Appeal No. 732 of 2014 (CIT v/s. PTC Software (I) Pvt. Ltd.,) This Court by an order dated 26th September, 2016, dismissed the Revenue's above Appeal on the above issue and held that KALS Information Solution Ltd., could not be a comparable to the Respondent-Assessee's transaction to determine its Arms Length Price (ALP). Further, no distinguishing features for the subject Assessment Year from that existing in the Assessment Year 2007-08 in the case of same Respondent-Assessee has been shown to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stinguishing features have been pointed out for the subject Assessment Year from that prevailing in Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 which would warrant a different view. (iii) Thus, sub-question (I) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. (II) Cosmic Global Ltd., (i) The impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that Cosmic Global Ltd., had outsourced its services to vendors just as M/s. Vishal Technologies Ltd., had done. In the above facts, the impugned order held that Cosmic Global Ltd., is not functionally comparable and, therefore, could not be included amongst the comparables to determine the ALP of the Respondent's transactions. (ii) The aforesaid fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fact that extra ordinary event such as merger/ amalgamation would affect the profitability of M/s. Accentia Technologies Ltd., Thus, making it incomparable. (iv) Further, in that case, as in this case, the Tribunal has also recorded a finding of fact that the activities of M/s. Accentia Technologies Ltd., and the Respondent are different. Thus, not comparable. The above finding of fact is not shown to be perverse. (v) In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6. Re. Question (d): (i) The impugned order of the Tribunal held that Eclerx Services Ltd., is not a comparable to the Respondent-Assessee for the reasons that it was providing knowl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g it to be comparable.' (iv) Further, our attention is invited to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd., v/s. CIT 377 ITR 533 wherein Delhi High Court held that KPO services could not be compared to call centre services, although both would fall under the umbrella of ITES. Therefore, the functions of two cannot be considered to be similar for the purpose of being comparable. (v) In the above view, this question also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. It is essentially a finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse. Thus, not entertained. 7. Re. Question (b): Appeal admitted on the substantial question of law at (b) 8. Registry is directed to communicate cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
