TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. R System International Ltd. and Coral Hub Ltd. do not fulfill the said filter. The accounting periods of said two concerns are at variance to the accounting period followed by the assessee and consequently, the margins of said concerns could not be applied to benchmark the arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. Accordingly, we hold so. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer / TPO to exclude the margins of said two concerns i.e. R System International Ltd. and Coral Hub Ltd. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has filed the details of margins of the concerns selected as comparables after working capital adjustment and the mean margins of the concerns finally selected worked o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The DRP erred by directing to include R System International Limited as a comparable company without appreciating the fact that the company maintained its data for the period of 01/01/2010 to 31/12/2011, thereby company fail to pass the filter of only current year data (F.Y. 2010-11) has been used adopted by TPO. 2. The DRP erred by directing to include Coral Hub Ltd. as a comparable company without appreciating the fact that the company maintained its data for the period of 01/07/2010 to 30/06/2011, thereby company fails to pass the filter of only current year data (F.Y. 2010-11) has been used adopted by TPO. 4. The only issued raised by the Revenue is against the order of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in including R Syst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Authorized Representative for the assessee withdrew the same. 6. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that the issue is decided against the assessee by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. PTC Software (I) Pvt. Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.732 of 2014, judgment dated 26.09.2016. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee was captive entity mainly engaged in providing information technology i.e. IT Enabled Services in the nature of call centre and low end back office support services to its enterprises. The assessee was being remunerated at cost plus 15%. The assessee had used TNMM method to benchmark its international transactions with Profit Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., it was pointed out that even if the said concern was considered as functionally comparable, the data which was available was for the period 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011. As per the Revenue, both the concerns fail the filter applied by the TPO and compared the results of the said concern with the results of assessee which are shown for financial year starting from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. We find merit in the plea of Revenue in this regard. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. PTC Software (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that the data for the same period is to be applied in order to hold the concerns selected, as comparable. We find that where the assessee is following financial years for compiling its data i.e. 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
