9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Panel (learned DRP) u/s. 144C(5) of the Act dated 25.9.2012. 2. At the outset, learned AR for the assessee pointed out that learned TPO selected seventeen comparables for benchmarking international transaction carried out by the assessee for the purpose of determination of arm‟s length price (in short "ALP). Learned AR pointed out the facts of the case that the assessee during the year under consideration had provided IT enabled services to its AEs to the tune of Rs. 145,65,31,831/-. ALP of the said international transaction was determined by the assessee by applying transactional net margin method ("TNMM‟ in short) as the most appropriate method ("MAM‟ in short). Operating profit to the total cost ratio was taken as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rables chosen by learned TPO. The assessee preferred further appeal to this Tribunal against the order of learned DRP dated 30.9.2012 in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as "3 Global Services Private Limited‟) Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 7514/mum/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 dated 10.12.2014, wherein two more comparables chosen by the learned TPO were directed to be excluded by the Tribunal. Learned AR pleaded that once these nine comparables are excluded from the total seventeen comparables chosen by the learned TPO, and revised PLI is worked out, comparable margin comes out to 15.85% as against assessee‟s margin 15.65%. Hence, by taking into account plus or minus 5% range of tolerance limit, assessee‟s pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Pvt Ltd 133954773 122242652 11712121 9.58% 14 Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd 178458000 90743000 87715000 96.66% 15 R Systems International (Seg.) 213305585 204518285 8787300 4.30% 16 Spanco Ltd (Seg.) 416992585 375547040 41445545 11.04% 17 Wipro Ltd (Seg.) 11572000000 8898000000 2674000000 30.05% Average 32.33% 6. Accordingly, learned TPO made an adjustment of Rs. 21,00,73,042/- to ALP. The assessee did not obtain any relief from learned DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. We find that the very same seventeen comparables were also considered in the hands of the Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. by learned TPO and learned DRP in their case had directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. for the remaining part of the financial year. We also find that the very same seventeen comparable companies (supra) were selected by learned TPO while framing transfer pricing assessment in the hands of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2008-09. Hence, we hold that there is no harm in following learned DRP‟s order and order of this Tribunal for assessee-herein. 12. From the aforesaid table, it could be seen that average of final eight comparable works out to 15.85%, whereas assessee‟s margin was 15.65%. Giving credit to the assessee for range of plus/minus 5%, we hold that assessee‟s margin would be at arm‟s length. Accordingly, Ground No. 1,2(e) and 2(k) are allowed. In view of this finding, adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration, the assessee made stump sale pursuant to business transfer agreement entered into between Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee and entire business of the assessee was transferred as going concern to Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. from December, 2007. IT enabled service business of the assessee was carried out up to 4.12.2007 and thereafter the same was transferred to Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. as a going concern which in turn carried out the same business for the remaining period of financial year..." We find that this is factually incorrect and the correct version of the facts are as under:- "During the year under consideration, Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. made slump sale pursuant to business tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsion of the said paragraph should be read as under:- "8. Aggrieved by this order, we find that the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and the Tribunal further directed to exclude following two comparables vide its order in ITA No. 7514/Mum/2013 dated 10,12.2014: Accentia Technologies Ltd (Seg) Cosmic Global ltd" 5. We find that the aforesaid errors pointed out by the assessee in its miscellaneous application are correct and does not require any hearing to be granted to both the parties as the errors are apparent on the face of record which could be done by way of corrigendum and accordingly, this corrigendum is issued. This correct version of the relevant paragraphs may be read alongwith order dated 23/01/2019 and all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
