Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1795 - AT - Income TaxTP adjustment - international transaction of provision of Marketing Support Services - comparable selection - functinal similarity - HELD THAT:- Choksi Lab Ltd. is a commercial testing and analysis laboratory engaged in analysing food and agricultural products, cement and building material, chemicals, drugs and paints. The said services rendered by the company are calibration services, pollution control, research and consultancy services. Therefore, this company cannot be said to be functionally dissimilar to the assessee company and we accordingly direct the TPO/Assessing Officer to exclude this company from the final set of comparables Indus Technical and Financial Consultants Limited - as per the website details, is a renowned manufacturer of TMT bars having diverse exposure in many fields. Thus, this company is a manufacturing company and cannot be said to be a comparable to the assessee company. This company was also excluded on the ground of being engaged in manufacturing activity and having a completely different FAR vide order in Intrepid Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ADIT[2015 (4) TMI 752 - ITAT DELHI]. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude this company from the final list of comparables. WAPCOS Limited (Segmental) company provides consultancy services relating to water, power and infrastructure sector. The services offered include market intelligence studies, planning/project formulation and geotechnical investigation, engineering, quality assurance and management and human resource development. This company also executes turn key projects on a regular basis. This company was excluded as a comparable by ITAT Delhi Bench in Nortel Networks India Ltd. vs ADIT [2014 (3) TMI 363 - ITAT DELHI] on the ground of being functionally dissimilar. Marketing support services cannot be compared with turnkey, engineering services and therefore, this company cannot be held to be functionally comparable to the assessee company. We direct the AO/TPO to exclude this company also from the final list of comparables. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|