9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itting the additional ground which again relates to TP issues. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing any of the grounds relating to TP issues except ground no. 8 & 11. Learned counsel also submitted that he was not pressing the additional ground either. 2.1 Based on the submissions on the learned AR, we dismiss ground nos. 1 to 13 of the assessee except ground no.8 & 11as also the additional grounds raised by the assessee. 3. Ground no.8 of the assessee is reproduced hereunder; " 8 The learned DRP erred in upholding the inclusion of certain functionally different companies as comparables based on unreasonable comparability criteria. Accentia Technologies Ltd.. Not comparable to appellant since (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... According to him, the Co-ordinate Bench had held M/s Accentia Technologies not a good comparable for ITES segment.. 4. Per contra, learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have perused the orders and hear the rival contentions. The issue of comparability of M/s Accentia Technologies Ltd., in the ITES segment had come up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Novo Nordisk India Pvt.Ltd., Vs DCIT (Supra) This Tribunal had held as under; " As regards the selection of Acentia Technologies Ltd., as comparable, the learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Capital IQ Information Systems (Ind.) Pvt.LTd., Vs Addl/Dy CIT, Circle- 1(2), Hyderabad and vice versa (ITA No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany by M/s Accentia Echnologies Ltd., during the relevant year, and the said company therefore, cannot be considered as comparable due to this extraordinary event which occurred in the relevant year as rightly held by the Tribunal inter-alia in the case of Excellence Data Research Pvt. Ltd(Supra). Although, the learned DR has sought to contend that the acquisition of a company by M/s Accentia Tech.Ltd., took place at the fag end of the year under consideration, the learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the process of acquisition had started on 15-05-2008 itself, i.e in the earlier part of the year under consideration. We therefore, follow the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Excellence Data ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the learned AR the DRP erroneously held that there was no information with regard to the export earning of the said company. Submission of the learned AR was that both these observations were wrong. Relying on paper book at page no.410, learned AR submitted that segmental results of the company dividing the segments into infrastructure management and IT enabled services were readily available in public domain as a part of the schedule to the audited accounts of the relevant previous year. As per the learned AR, once segmental results were available the question of proportion of segmental revenue to the total revenue was no more relevant. As for export earnings, the learned AR submitted that the said company had export earnings of 10605 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s comparable. The AO is accordingly directed to exclude the above company from the comparables". 9.1 What we find is that in the published account of M/s Microland Ltd., segmentation between ITES and infrastructure management were rightly available. This is reproduced as Annexure to this order. 9.2 This Tribunal in the case of 24x7 Customer.com Pvt. Ltd.,(Supra) in MP No.37(B)/2013 had held as under; " 3.2.2. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Authorized Representative as laid out at para-3.2.1. of this order, but are unable to accept the contentions made therein. A clear finding has been rendered in para-17.8 of our order dated 09-11-2012 that this company has clearly demarcated call entre segment (viz. ITES) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... results are available in the audited financial statements, there is no reason to apply revenue ratios. In so far as export earnings are concerned, audited accounts of M/s Microland Ltd, at its schedule-16(9) placed at paper book page no.405, clearly states that it had earned foreign currency of Rs. 1060587000/-. We are therefore, of the opinion, that both the reasons cited by the DRP for excluding M/s Microland Ltd., was incorrect. We therefore, set aside the directions of the DRP in this regard and direct the TPO to consider M/s MIcroland Ltd., as a good comparable for the purpose of analyzing the pricing of the international transaction undertaken by the assessee. Ground no.11 of the assessee stands allowed. 10. Ground no.13 raised of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
