TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) for directing its exclusion. Thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Excluding CDSL Ventures Ltd. as a comparable - CIT(A) after considering the business profile and the details, has given a finding that it belongs to ITES segment, more than 80% of its income is by way of on-line data charges and therefore, it cannot be considered as comparable companies to that of assessee. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and therefore upheld the order of CIT(A) for its exclusion as a comparable company. Thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No.2664/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2021 - Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Darpan Karaplani, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 31.01.2017 of the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in not considering the comparable transactions of M/s Concept Communication Ltd selected by the TPO for calculating the Arm Length Price of International Transactions entered into by the assessee with its associates. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the comparable transactions of M/s Crystal Hues Ltd selected by the TPO for calculating the Arm Length Price of International Transactions entered into by the assessee with its associates. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the comparable transactions of M/s Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. selected by the TPO for calculating the Arm Length Price of International Transactions entered into by the assessee with its associates. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the comparable transactions of M/s Info Edge (India) Ltd selected by the TPO for calculating the Arm Length Price of International Transactions entered into by the assessee with its associates. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . TPO had proposed the inclusion of M/s. Info Edge (India) Ltd. as a comparable company for determination of arm s length price . Assessee objected to its inclusion as comparable company on the ground that it was not comparable due to difference in functions and on the ground that it had high turnover. The objections raised by the assessee for the inclusion of M/s. Info Edge (India) Ltd. as a comparable was not found acceptable to TPO as he was of the view that in market support industries, turnover does not play any significant role as far as the margins are concerned. The TPO was of the view that it was functionally similar to the assessee and further ones functionally is accepted, then companies can be compared irrespective of the turnover, size or scope of operation. The TPO thus considered M/s. Info Edge (India) Ltd. as a comparable company. 7. When the matter was carried before CIT(A), CIT(A) noted that the assessee was engaged in providing administrative/facilitation assistance, providing product support and training to dealers and customers; assistance in relation to marketing/new business developments; communicating new business opportunity to AE; and providing assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) after considering the nature of activities had thus given a finding that nature of activities carried between the assessee and M/s. Info Edge (India) Ltd. are completely different services and the two cannot be considered to be a comparables and he therefore directed its exclusion. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) for directing its exclusion. Thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground No.9 is with respect to direction of CIT(A) in excluding CDSL Ventures Ltd. as a comparable. 11. CDSL Ventures Ltd. was considered to be a comparable company by the TPO and had included it in the list of comparables. Before TPO, assessee had objected to its inclusion as a comparable. Assessee had sought its exclusion for the reason that the activities performed by it was completely different than that of assessee. It was further submitted before TPO that it was a leading securities depository in the country and it was handling the work of customer profiling and Record keeping for issuance of Know Your Client (KYC) acknowledgement to mutual fund investors. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
