TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 2.2.2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Revenue urges the following questions of law, for our consideration: (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in excluding Accentia Technologies Ltd. and Coral Hubs Ltd. as comparable, ignoring the said companies are engaged in the business of providing IT enabled services ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in excluding Cosmic Global ltd. and Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. without taking into account FAR analysis ? (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELearning service. Thus, the impugned order of the Tribunal found that M/s. Accentia Technologies Ltd. is not comparable with the Respondent-Assessee. Besides, impugned order also records a finding of fact that during the year the profitability of M/s. Accentia Technologies Ltd. had been impacted by merger/amalgmation and therefore, cannot be considered to be comparable. (b) The grievance of the Revenue before us is that the merger and/or amalgmation would have no impact on the profitability of M/s. Accentia Technologies Ltd. Therefore, it was urged to be an appropriate comparable as both are rendering ITES services. (c) We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has after rendering a finding of fact that the activities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view taken by the Tribunal in excluding Accentia Technologies Ltd. is a possible view more particularly in the absence of the same being shown to be perverse. Thus, no interference is warranted. II Coral Hub Ltd.: (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has excluded M/s. Coral Hub Ltd. from the list of comparable after rendering a finding of fact that activities undertaken by Coral Hub Ltd. are not comparable to that engaged by the Respondent-Assessee. It was found as a fact by the Tribunal that M/s. Coral Hub Ltd. is engaged in ITES particularly selling and purchasing of products and goods whereas the Respondent-Assessee is engaged in elearning and content development activity. Besides, the Tribunal has recorded finding of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices but also in providing agency services by way of outsourcing to third party vendors. In this case also, the impugned order of the Tribunal has come to a finding of the fact that the services rendered by the Respondent to its AE is different from the activities/services provided by M/s. Coral Hub Ltd. Therefore, they would not be comparable only on the ground that both of them broadly fall under the category ITES providers. (d) The finding reached by the Tribunal is one of finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse. Thus, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. III Conclusion: In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to substantial question of law. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edge Process Outsourcing' which would clearly establish that the activities are not comparable. The impugned order also records that M/s. Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. was engaged in payroll outsourcing on a substantive scale. Besides, there was no bifurcation available of profits earned individually on the various diversified activities being carried by M/s. Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. Thus, it held that comparison on an entity level of M/s. Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. with the Respondent's AE transaction is not correct. (b) The Revenue has not been able to show that the finding of the fact arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse. (c) In the above view, there is no reason to interfere with the above finding of the Tribunal in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
