TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the activities carried out by M/s. Maple E-Solutions Ltd., found that they are functionally different and, therefore, could not be used as a comparable in arriving at ALP. The impugned order held that merely because the call centre business is also understood broadly as an IT enabled services, would not by itself lead the respondent assessee and M/s. Mapple E-Solutions Ltd. to become a comparable, looking at the functional difference between the two. The view taken by the Tribunal on the facts is a reasonable and possible view. Excluding Maple E Solutions from the comparable set on the ground that there had been complaints of fraud etc. against the directors of the company - Because of the unreliability of the data of M/s. Maple E-Solu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aints of fraud etc. against the directors of the company without examining full facts and giving a finding that such complaints related to the year under consideration and had any bearing on the functionality or margins of the company? 3. Regarding question no.(i) :- a) We have today passed an order in Income Tax Appeal No.1095 of 2015 filed by the Revenue in respect of the same respondent assessee arising from the common impugned order dated 29th September, 2014 to the extent it related to A.Y. 2008-09. In our order in the above appeal an identical question as raised herein was dismissed by us. (b) Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that for the reasons indicated in our order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, could not be used as a comparable in arriving at ALP. The impugned order held that merely because the call centre business is also understood broadly as an IT enabled services, would not by itself lead the respondent assessee and M/s. Mapple E-Solutions Ltd. to become a comparable, looking at the functional difference between the two. (c) The view taken by the Tribunal on the facts is a reasonable and possible view. Therefore, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5. Regarding Question no.(iii) :- (a) We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. CRM Services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
