Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1697 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - Determination of the arm’s length price (ALP) in respect of an international transaction of rendering IT enabled services (ITes) by the assessee to its Associated Enterprise (AE) - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- The functions performed by the assessee, as we have already seen is back office services relating to finance and human resource functions, including accounts payable to assessee, remote server access, maintenance and management services, payroll processing, credit analysis, ledger maintenance, etc. for its affiliates worldwide. It is thus clear that the information technology services provided by the assessee cannot be compared with Engineering Design Services provided by Acropetal Technologies Ltd. Therefore, the conclusion that this company is not functionally comparable is found to be correct. We also find that this Tribunal in the case of Novo Nordisk (I) P. Ltd. [2017 (8) TMI 1560 - ITAT BANGALORE] has held that in the case of a company which was rendering similar ITeS as that of assessee it was held that Acropetal Technologies Ltd. cannot be considered as a comparable in ITeS segment. Deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- The provision of set off and carry forward as contemplated under Chapter-VI of the Act would not be attracted and therefore intra head set off sought by seeking to rely on the provision of section 70(1) of the Act and seeking to restrict the deduction u/s 10A and 10AA of the Act to the extent of gross total income as contemplated u/s 80A(2) of the Act, cannot be sustained. We therefore hold that deduction u/s.10A of the Act has to be allowed without setting off the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of non Sec. 10A units before allowing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] we find no merit in ground No.12 raised by the revenue. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
|