9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 and 3 relates to the issue of CIT (A) excluding Hinduja TMT Limited as a comparable. 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee, a company was earlier known as M/s Tele Atlas Hertogenbosech BV which subsequently merged with the present assessee by virtue of an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Company Petition No.105/05 vide order dated 27-1-2006. Be that as it may, during the relevant assessment year, the assessee was an wholly owned subsidiary of Herotogenbosch BV engaged in the business of development of digitised geographic databases and other software through its unit in Noida. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee was engaged in the business of rendering software development and IT enabled back o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e arms's length price at Rs.25,18,17,489/- as against Rs.23,45,68,090/- declared by the assessee thereby computing the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,72,49,399/-. On the basis of the adjustment, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making the addition of Rs.1,72,49,399/- to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved of the addition so made, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A). 7. In course of hearing of appeal before the CIT (A) , the assessee contended that one of the comparables i.e., Hinduja TMT Ltd., was having significant related party transaction of about 28%, hence it cannot be treated as comparable to the assessee. In this respect, the assessee submitted the details of transaction of Hinduja TMT L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver since we are not concerned with that issue in the present appeal, it is not necessary to deal with the same. 9. The CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee vis a vis the statutory provisions agreed with the contention of the assessee that only current year data can be considered for arriving at OP/TC margin of the comparable companies. The CIT (A) after considering the current year data of the comparable companies noticed that the OP/TC margin as per the work out given at page-13 of his order while including the rejected company, viz., Vans Information Technology, the average OP/TC would be (-)4.32%. Whereas on excluding the said company the average OP/TC would be 8%. Similarly, if both the companies i.e. i.e. Hinduja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he arm's length price declared by the assessee. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) which is accordingly upheld. The grounds raised are dismissed. 11. Ground No.4 reads as under:- "The learned CIT (A) erred both on facts, in law and circumstances by not considering mark up on the recharges received by the taxpayer." The learned AR, at the outset, objecting to the aforesaid ground submitted that the said ground does not arise either from the order of the TPO or CIT (A). Hence, the department cannot be permitted to raise such ground before us. In fact the learned Departmental Representative wanted to withdraw the said ground. 12. After perusing the order of the TPO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
