9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 10A of the Act, disallowance of relocation expenses u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act and non granting of tax deducted at source. 3. Representative of both the sides were heard. Case records carefully perused. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant company is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Express International Inc. USA and is engaged in data management, information analysis and control activities for export to various American Express Affiliates worldwide. During the year under consideration, the gross turnover of the assessee was Rs. 794.70 crores with Net Profit of Rs. 150.71 crores. 6. In accordance with the provisions of Section 92CA of the Act, the international transactions entered into by the assessee with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e subsumed the interest on receivables as working capital and, therefore, no further adjustment is required. 12. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 13. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2010-11. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. The co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1426/DEL/2015 order dated 17.07.2019 has considered the exclusion of Infosys BPO and TCS E serve Ltd. The relevant findings of the coordinate bench read as under: "For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that because of the extrao ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32. Assessee contended that inappropriateness of the turnover filter has not been considered by the ld. TPO. Ld. DRP on a perusal of the financials found that CG Vak Software is mainly involved into software development and earns major portion of its revenue from the same and the revenue from ITeS/BPO is only 15% i.e. Rs. 83 lakhs and, therefore, it fails the turnover filter. 33. Assessee assails the application of turnover filter so long as functional dissimilarity is not attributable to this company and submitted that a similar contention of the revenue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2009-10 wherein the Tribunal by placing reliance on Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (I) P. Ltd. vs ACIT, ITA No.6504/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that in assessee's own case for the Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal considered this aspect and rejected the turnover filter. 36. We, therefore, in the light of a view taken by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 and also in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case Chris Capital (supra) accept the contention of the assessee and direct ld. TPO to consider these two companies as good comparables with the assessee to benchmark the international transactions. 16. In so far as the inclusion of Caliber Point is concerned, we direct the Assessing Officer /TPO to consider the same in light of findings given in the case of other comparables. 17. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The next issue raised by the assessee relates to claim of deduction u/s 10A amounting to Rs. 58,93,05,999/- in respect of AEGSC (STP) Unit. Before us ld. Counsel submitted that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case by the Tribunal in the earlier years. On the other hand, ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO. 34. From the perusal of the impugned order as well as the earlier order of the Tribunal, we find that in AY 2003-04, the Tribunal has upheld the order of ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction u/s 10A. In AY 2008-09, again in revenue's appeal this Tribunal following the earlier decision of the Tribunal held that assessee was entitled for deduction u/s 10A on the ground that it has establ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12(4) of India USA DTAA, thus liable to TDS which has not been done by the assessee. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 1,86,68,714/- was made. 23. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that reliance on the decision in the case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt Ltd 364 ITR 336 is not applicable on the facts of the case. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that substantial portion of this remuneration is towards expenses incurred by the employees travelling abroad to which principles in the case Centrica do not apply. The ld. counsel for the assessee further pointed out that on identical set of facts, the first appellate authority in Assessment Year 2012-13 has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 24. We have gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
