9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 for the Assessment Year ('AY‟) 2010-11, ITA 717 of 2018 is against the order dated 18th August 2017 of the ITAT in IT (TP)A No.111/Bang/2014 for the AY 2009-10. 2. While admitting both appeals vide orders dated 11th April 2018 in ITA 414/2018 and 23rd July 2018 in ITA 717/2018 the following question was framed for consideration: "Did the ITAT fall into error in excluding M/s Infosys BPO Ltd from the list of comparables which had been taken into account by the Assessing Officer in the facts of this case?" 3. The Assessee, which now stands merged with Genpact India, was during the AYs in question engaged in the business of providing marketing data management services to customers of Symphony Marketing Solutions, USA. It was a w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to its brand, the DRP held that the Assessee had not placed any evidence or data to support such contention. It was held that even though the brand fetched a higher turnover, it did not necessarily mean that it would generate the higher margin. 7. The DRP also rejected the objection of the Assessee to the inclusion of Accentia Technology Pvt. Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. on the ground that they were functionally comparable to the Assessee which was providing captive BPO services to its AEs. 8. The Assessee‟s appeal was allowed by the ITAT by relying on its decision e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in respect of each of the aforementioned comparables. The ITAT directed the exclusion of the comparables agreeing with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % services provided to its AEs. 11. This Court has in several decisions held in similar circumstances as the present one that Infosys BPO Ltd. cannot be a suitable comparable. The pleas urged by the Revenue in the present case are similar to the ones urged by it in ITA 420 of 2019 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 v. M/s.Sanvih Info Group Pvt. Ltd.) which was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 16th May 2019. Paras 5 to 8 of the said order apply to the case in hand: "5. The Revenue urges that of the ten excluded comparables, the ITAT ought not to have excluded Infosys BPO Limited only on the basis of its earlier order for AY 2009-2010 since in that earlier order the ITAT had wrongly proceeded on the basis that the said comparable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take up the latter decision first for discussion. In Agnity (supra), the revenue had questioned, inter alia, the ITAT decision to exclude the data relating to Infosys. One of the reasons was that the said company was a "giant" corporation and was involved in multifarious activities. After reproducing the comparative chart and noticing the facts, the Court reasoned as follows: 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the Tribunal after recording the aforesaid table has not affirmed or given any finding on the differences. This is partly correct as the Tribunal has stated that Infosys Technologies Ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparables for the reason latter was a giant company in the area of development of software ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
