TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1002
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in excluding KALs Information Solutions Ltd., from the list of comparables on the basis of previous years documentations of the assessee without verifying the functions performed by the comparables in the year under consideration? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the comparable company on the ground that the assessee company is functionally not comparable, has accepted Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., as comparable company and also that the said company was selected as a comparable by the assessee itself for the A. Y. 2008-09? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es for the subject Assessment Year from that existing in the Assessment Year 2007-08 in the case of same Respondent-Assessee has been shown to us. (iii) Thus, question (a) does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 4 Re. Question (c): (I) Vishal Information Technology Ltd., (now known as Coral Hubs Ltd.: (i) The impugned order of the Tribunal held that it is to be excluded from the list of comparables to determine the ALP of the Respondent. This, by following its order dated 30th April, 2014 in the Respondent-Assessee's own case for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. It was so held as functionally Vishal Information Technologies Ltd., outsources the services to be rendered by it to third par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mongst the comparables to determine the ALP of the Respondent's transactions. (ii) The aforesaid finding of fact by the Tribunal has not been shown to be perverse. In fact, the reasons indicated in the impugned order to hold that Vishal Technologies Ltd., is not a comparable, would equally apply to M/s. Cosmic Global Ltd., (iii) Thus, the sub-question (II) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. (III) Accordingly, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5 Re. Question (c): (i) The impugned order of the Tribunal has excluded M/s. Accentia Technologies Ltd., from the list of comparables to determine the ALP of the Respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent-Assessee for the reasons that it was providing knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) whereas Respondent is engaged in BPO Services. (ii) The impugned order of the Tribunal place reliance upon the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) Pvt. Ltd., (Income Tax Appeal No. 7466/Mum/2012), to hold that Eclerx Services Ltd., was engaged in providing KPO Services which is distinct from the BPO Services. Thus, excluded the same from the list of comparables. (iii) The impugned order of the Tribunal, in fact, relies upon the following extract in the Special Bench's decision of the Tribunal in Maersk Global Centres (India) Pvt. Ltd., as under: " Keeping in view the nature of services rendered by M/s. Ecle....