9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate For the Respondent : Shri Vijyakumar Punna, Jr.Standing Counsel ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Members of the DRP dated 05.06.2017 in F.No.288/DRP-2/BANG/2016-17 U/s.144C(5) r.w.s. 143(3), 144C(1) & 92CA of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.Revenue Authorities has adopted M/s. Infosys BPO as the comparable company which has a turnover of Rs. 1831.34 crores though the assessee companies' turnover is only Rs. 107.13 crores which is 17 times higher than the turnover of the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted before us that the Ld.Revenue Authorities had rightly adopted the other companies as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble companies. Therefore we are of the considered view that M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd., cannot be treated as a comparable company while arriving at the average NCP margins in the case of the assessee. We also draw strength from the decisions pointed out before us by the Ld.AR in the case H & S Software Development and Knowledge Management Centre Pvt Ltd (TS-9-HC-2018(DEL)-TP) wherein it was held that M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove ratios laid down by the Tribunal and Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred by the Ld.AR, we hereby direct the Ld.AO to exclude M/s. Infosys BPO as comparable company while arriving at the NCP margin in the case of the assessee. We also make it clear that at the time of hearing no other ground was raised before us by the Ld.AR other than the ground we have adjudicated herein above. 6. In the resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
