TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puting capital gains that is arisen on transfer of asset as a going concern and is directed to value as per section 50 B of the act. Ld. AO is also directed to decide the depreciation on the block of assets and capital gain has to be computed in accordance with section 40-50 and section 50 B of the act. Accordingly we allow this ground raised by assessee. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS - HELD THAT:- Primarily, this issue is against assesee in case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Ltd. [ 2009 (9) TMI 526 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . However, Ld.AR submitted that TDS has been deducted on payment made to Software Productivity Research Asia Pacific PTE Ltd. Details of the TDS deducted is furnished by assessee in Form 15CB. We t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this comparable under various segments. This Tribunal remanded this comparable to Ld.AO/TPO for verification. 5. However while arguing present miscellaneous petition, Ld.AR submitted that this comparable only has provided segmental information of revenue without apportioning expenditure to relevant segments. Under such circumstances, Ld.AO/TPO considered the entity level figures. He submitted that, in Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT for assessment year 2011-12 reported in [2017] 85 taxmann.com 124, this comparable was excluded by observing that segmental details were available only in respect of revenue whereas segmental information of expenditure has not been provided for in the annual reports of this comparable. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected as a comparable. Thus, Sasken has diverse functions and segmental details are not given separately for the varied activities it is engaged in. It is thus submitted that this comparable ought to be excluded from the final list. 8. We refer to and rely on the observations of this tribunal in case of Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd (supra) as under: (vi) Sasken Communications Technologies Ltd: 15.1 The TPO included this company in the set of comparables despite the assessee's objection that it was functionally different and also had Product portfolio. 15.2 After considering the rival submissions, we find from page 58 of the TPO's order that he has recognized sale of software products to the tune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g/2016(para8); and Commscope Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO in IT(TP)A Nos.166 and 181/Bang/2016 (para 9) directed exclusion of this company in the list of comparable companies. 10. Based on the above discussion and analysis, we are of the view that, this comparable cannot be compared with a contract service provider like assessee and accordingly direct Ld. AO/TPO to exclude this company from finalist. Accordingly this comparable stands excluded. 11. Next mistake alleged by assessee is in respect of ground No. 14 (a) wherein assessee sought deletion of negative working capital adjustment carried out by learnt TPO while determining a LP. It has been submitted that this tribunal while adjudicating this ground at page 28 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordance with provisions of section 50 B. 17. He submitted that the issue considered by this Tribunal in Ground 15 relates to slump sale of wireless division and this Tribunal while concluding this ground directed to value as per section 55 of the Act. He submitted that correct section that needs to be mentioned section 50 B, instead of providing indexation, capital gain needs to be computed in accordance with section 45-50 of the Act. 18. Ld.Sr.DR relied on observation of this Tribunal. 19. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides and the records placed before us. We note that this Tribunal inadvertently mentioned section 55 instead of section 50 B, and wrongly directed granting of indexation for computing capital gain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23. We note that direction to the extent of tax deducted by assessee needs to be granted. Accordingly following paragraph shall be read in place of existing para at page 38 of impugned order: We have perused submission advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. Primarily, this issue is against assesee by decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (Supra). However, Ld.AR submitted that TDS has been deducted on payment made to Software Productivity Research Asia Pacific PTE Ltd. Details of the TDS deducted is furnished by assessee in Form 15CB. We therefore directed Ld.AO to verify the same. If claim of assessee is found to be correct, no disallowance should be made to the ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
