TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company and therefore, it requires admission and remand of the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO for verification and re-consideration. - M.A. No.18/Hyd/2021 (Arising out of ITA No.2233/Hyd/2018) - - - Dated:- 26-4-2021 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sri H. Srinivasulu For the Revenue : Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This M.A. is filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of the I.T. Act seeking rectification of the alleged mistake in the order of the Tribunal. The contentions in the M.A. are as under: ADP Private Limited Assessment Year 2014-15 Miscellaneous Application Annexur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omparability of MPS Limited, amongst others. Further, the Appellant would like to bring to the Hon'ble ITAT's attention, to the written submissions filed by the Appellant on 02 September, 2020 in which specific arguments for exclusion of MPS Limited were taken and requested for remanding back the issue to Ld. TPO on the ground that this comparable did not fulfil the filters applied by Ld. TPO. [Refer Page 40 to 42] 3. The appellant draws the kind attention of the Hon'ble IT AT to page 43 and 44 of the Ld. TPO's order wherein the Ld. TPO had applied the filter Companies whose revenues from IT enabled services is less than 75% of the total operating revenue were excluded III. Reasons for the filing the MA 4. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Revenue. He also drew our attention to page No.40 of the assessee s objections before us and to Para 27.3 thereof, wherein the assessee has placed the Annual Report of the company in the form of additional evidence and sought to satisfy us that this company is not comparable to the assessee company for the reasons mentioned therein. He, therefore, prayed that this issue may be set as ide to the file of the TPO/Assessing Officer for reconsideration. 3. The learned DR was also heard. 4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that there is an inadvertent mistake in the order of the Tribunal in not discussing and in not adjudicating on the objection of the assessee with regard to the comparability o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
