Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1844 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - addition on account of Arm's Length Price - comparable selection - assessee is engaged in the business of providing IT-enabled Services(ITES) and business support services, such as financial reports/related documents, technical service for development of software and other similar services to its AE on a ‘cost plus mark up’ basis - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2007-08 [2017 (12) TMI 1731 - ITAT DELHI] rejected the three comparables i.e. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd., Wipro Ltd., Mold-tek Technological Ltd. as functionally different from the assessee company. Genesys International Corporation Ltd.comparable provides Geospatial Services, viz., photogrammetric services, preparation of cadastral maps from aerial photographs etc. using niche software tolls which requires a different skill set, e.g., services of draftsman, cartographers and civil engineers etc. and need highly skilled manpower. Therefore, this comparable is rightly rejected by the CIT(A) as given a categorical finding as to the function of the comparable and the requirement of the highly skilled manpower. Excess depreciation on computer accessories - Whether eligible items for depreciation at 60%? - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has given the finding that the assessee had purchased computer peripherals like wireless access point, G-Tran, Carry cass, Pan Cards, spike buster, pen drive, ETI enhancements, switches, keylock, battery, tae, extension card, tv tune, convertor, charger etc. Rs. 1,62,975/- as computer peripherals. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT] classified these items as eligible items for depreciation at 60%. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is squarely applicable in assessee’s case. Therefore, Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
|