2018 (7) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndia) Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax) for A.Y.2009-10. 2. The proposed substantial question of law framed in the Memorandum of appeal by the Appellants-Revenue is quoted below for ready reference:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in excluding the comparables, namely, Accentia Technologies Ltd., Eclerx Services Ltd., Infosys BPO Ltd., and Cosmic Global Ltd., on the ground of functional dissimilarity by following its earlier order in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years which has not reached finality and even when the TPO had chosen the comparables as it satisfies qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO and Tribunal ought to have decided the comparabilit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... difference in facts. Hence, respectfully following this tribunal order, we hold that Accentia Technologies Ltd.  is not a good comparable and according the AO/TPO is directed to exclude this company from the final list comparables. 8. We find that in Para 11.2 of its order, the tribunal in the case of e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Supra) held that Eclerx Services Ltd. is also not a good comparable because of functional dissimilarity. We have already seen that the functional profile of the assessee and e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. is similar and learned DR of the revenue also could not point out any difference in facts. Hence, respectfully following this tribunal order, we hold that Eclerx Services Ltd., i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f this Court in I.T.A. Nos.536/2015 c/w 537/2015 dated 25.06.2018 (Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. -v- M/s Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd.,) wherein it has been observed that unless the finding of the Tribunal is found ex facie perverse, the Appeal u/s. 260-A of the Act, is not maintainable. 6. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below for ready reference:- " Conclusion: 55. A substantial quantum of international trade and transactions depends upon the fair and quick judicial dispensation in such cases. Had it been a case of substantial question of interpretation of provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaties (DTAA), interpretation of provisions of the Income Tax Act or Overriding Effect of the Treaties over .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X