9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that these two M.Ps. are in respect of the combined Tribunal order dated 09.06.2017. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee in the course of hearing before us that as per paras 6 and 7 of these two M.Ps., this is the contention of the assessee that in view of this clear finding of the Tribunal that the direction of DRP is very cryptic, the matter should have been restored back to the file of DRP and not to file of AO/TPO. As per the assessee, this is an apparent mistake in this combined Tribunal order dated 09.06.2017. In reply, it was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that as per the Tribunal order in M.P. No. 20/Bang/2018 dated 06.03.2018 in case of IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, it was held by Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the DRP reproduced by the Tribunal in its impugned order, no name of any comparable is mentioned but still the DRP has picked up only two names i.e. Infosys Ltd. and Megasoft Ltd. Considering all these facts of the present case, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order. In the case of M/s. Equant Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) cited before us by ld. AR of assessee, the matter was restored back by the Tribunal to the file of DRP for fresh decision for passing a speaking and reasoned order in respect of the grounds raised before it but this is not a ratio of this Tribunal order that in all the cases where order of DRP is cryptic, the matter shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal order in Infinera's case wherein the decision to reject the above mentioned companies and the reasons behind the same is provided by the Tribunal. Further the Tribunal has mentioned that the ld. DR of revenue has not pointed out any difference in facts between the present case of the assessee and that of the case law relied upon by the assessee. Thereafter in course of hearing of M.P., it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in para 13 of the impugned Tribunal order, it is noted that the ld. DR of revenue could not point out any difference in facts and therefore, the Tribunal has followed this Tribunal order but while giving the final finding, the Tribunal has decided that no interference is called for in the order of DRP re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT segment. We find that there is apparent mistake in this para of Tribunal order and hence, we rectify the same. This Para 13 of impugned Tribunal order should be read as under. "Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts. Therefore, respectfully following these two tribunal orders, we hold that the four comparables i.e. 1) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., 2) Tata Elxsi Ltd., 3) Persistent Systems Ltd. and 4) Infosys Ltd. in IT segment should be excluded from the final list of comparables of IT segment and in ITES segment, we uphold the exclusion of 1) Accentia Technologies Ltd., 2) Infosys BPO Ltd., 3) Cosmic Global Ltd. and 4) Eclerx Services Ltd. Remaining grounds on TP issues are rejected as not pressed as no ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
