TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice provider to provide offshore outsourcing services primarily to GE Group entities / businesses worldwide. The primary activity of the assessee company comprises of rendering I.T. enabled services and financial support services to various overseas GE companies on a cost plus basis. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 30.09.2010 declaring a total income of ₹ 12,16,81,262/-. Since the assessee had entered into international transactions involving provision of I.T. enabled services to its associated enterprises of the value of more than 15 Crores during the year under consideration, a reference was made by the AO to the TPO under section 92 CA of the Act for determining the arm s length price of the said transactions. In the TP study report furnished by the assessee, TNMM was adopted as the most appropriate method to determine the arm s length price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AE for providing I.T. enabled services. In the said report, the assessee company was taken as a party and operating profit / total cost (OP / TC) was taken as the profit level indicator (PLI). Eight entities were selected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Name of the Comparable Remarks of this office 1 Accentia Technology You have rejected this company on the ground mentioned in Accept/Reject matrix that Performs Dissimilar Functions . However, the annual report of the company has been perused. This is very much an ITES company and it passes all filters also. Hence, this is a robust comparable in your case. 2 Cosmic Global Limited 3 Fortune Infotech Limited You have rejected this company on the ground mentioned in Accept/Reject matrix that company is having RPT in excess of 20%. However, the annual report of the company has been perused. RPT of the comparable company has been computed and it found to be less than 25% of Sales (24.52%). Hence, this is a suitable comparable in your case. 4 Igate Global Solutions Limited You have rejected this company on the ground mentioned in Accept/Reject matrix that engaged in Consulting and BPO segment and proper segmental results are not given. However, the annual report of the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,513/- was proposed by him in his order dated 9.1.2014 passed under section 92 CA of the Act. Accordingly, in the draft assessment order 31.1.2014 passed by the AO, addition of ₹ 4,80,19,591/- was made by the AO after some adjustment to the total income of the assessee on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 6. Against the draft order of the AO dated 31.1.2014, objections were raised by the assessee which were overruled by the DRP vide its order dated 24.10.2014 passed under Section 143(C)(5) of the Act. The DRP thus confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO and consequently in the final assessment order passed by the AO under section 143 read with section 144(C) of the Act vide an order dated 30.10.2014, addition of ₹ 4,80,90,591/- was made by the AO to the total income of the assessee by way of transfer pricing adjustment. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has referred this appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on the record. Although there are several grounds raised by the assessee while challenging the addition made on account of transfer pricing ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein fixed asset schedule of the said company is contained in which, in the block goodwill/ brand/ IPR an addition of ₹ 19,651,057/- has been shown. Thus, he pointed out that the asset base had substantially increased in the year under consideration and, therefore, this could not be taken as comparable because of the extraordinary event. Ld. counsel further referred to the decision of the ITAT dated 6-7-2015 in the case of Techbook International Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2010-11, contained at pages 649 to 699 of the PB, wherein this comparable has been excluded on account of this event, observing as under: 10. 1.2 . We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We have also gone through the Annual report of this company, a copy of which has been placed .on page 435 onwards of the paper book. Notes to Accounts of this company, which have been placed on page 443 of the paper book, indicate about the amalgamation or Asscent Infoserve Pvt. Ltd. with it as approved by the shareholders in the court convened meeting held on 25.4.2009 and, subsequently, sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court on 21.8.2009. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Petro Ara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the present set of facts. Therefore, respectfully following the order of the ITAT in the case of Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we direct this comparable to be excluded from the final list of comparables. 9. By its order passed in the case of M/s Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal also excluded M/s I-gate Global Solutions Limited and M/s Infosys BPO Limited from the list of comparables vide para no. 32 to 35 which read as under:- 32. i-Gate Global Solutions:- In the case of Techbook International Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has excluded this company from the list of comparables by observing as under: 10.4.2: We have gone through the Annual report of this Company, which is available on page 446 onwards of the paper book. Notes to accounts or this company indicate amalgamation of i-Gate Global Solutions Sdn. Bhd. This amalgamation took place with the approval of the members of the company on 12.8.2009 and subsequently sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 24.2.2010. As the financial results of this company also include the results of amalgamating company, in our considered opinion, this is an extraordinary financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
