9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r treatment, swimming pool equipments and that the Respondent-Company is making three kinds of vessels namely (I) Code Line, (ii) Composite pressure vessels and (iii) FRP pressure vessels and set up an in-house facility for catering to its needs on the area of engineering, designing & product development. It is further their case that the Company has rendered such services in the relevant assessment year 2007-2008 to some of its group companies abroad and that the Respondent is the subsidiary to Pentair INC, USA and is involved in the same business. The said Respondent-Company has a unit at Verna Industrial Estate where the said manufacturing activity is taking place. It is further their case that the Respondent-Assess has filed returns of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actors for treating a company as comparable and accordingly erred in excluding M/s. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., M/s Infosys BPO Limited and M/s. Wipro Ltd., as comparables. 4. On the other hand, Shri Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, has pointed out that both the Authorities have concurrently come to the conclusion that the said Companies are not comparable to the Respondent- Assessee Company and, as such, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to any concurrent finding. Learned Counsel further submits that these concurrent findings of facts based on the material on record cannot be reappreciated by this Court in the present Appeal as there is no substantial question of law which arise ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Rs. 11 crores which is much more than 65 times of the Assessee's turnover. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in excluding this Company out of the comparables. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). (iii) Wipro Ltd. :- After hearing the rival submissions, we noted that the CIT(A) applying the turnover filter has excluded this company out of the comparables. The turnover reported in the case of Wipro Ltd. Is Rs. 939.78 crores while in the case of the Asseessee the turnover is around Rs. 11 crores. Therefore, on the basis of the turnover filter itself this company cannot be regarded to be comparable to the Asseessee company and accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE and W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd)" 8. In the present Appeal, the Appellant-Revenue has not been able to controvert or deny the data relied upon by the Authorities below to come to such conclusion. The said Companies are no doubt large and distinct companies where the area of development of subject services are different and as such the profit earned therefrom cannot be a bench-marked or equated with the Respondent- Company. 9. Shri Jain, learned Counsel has rightly relied upon the Judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in (2013) 36 taxmann.com 289(Delhi) in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. Learned Counsel has also brought to our notice the Order of the Income Tax Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
