TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a comparable to that of assessee. With respect to Acropetal Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd., we find that CIT(A) has noted that in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2008-09, CIT(A) had held these two companies to be functional dissimilar to that of assessee. He has further noted that there are no changes in the facts and circumstances in the year under consideration and that of A.Y. 2008-09. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has pointed out by the Revenue. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No.2399/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2020 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der was passed by the AO to which assessee submitted that they are filing the appeal before the CIT(A) against the order. AO thereafter, vide order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act dated 09.05.2016 determined the total income of Rs. 176,48,26,064/- inter alia by making addition on account of Arm s Length Price of Rs. 53,86,94,824/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A), wherein assessee inter alia challenged the inclusion of certain comparables included by the TPO for computing the margins. The CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee vide order dated 13.11.2017 directed the TPO to exclude Accentia Technologies Ltd., Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg) and Eclerx Services Ltd. in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it cannot be compared to assessee company which is rendering ITeS services. With respect to Acropetal Technologies Ltd., he submitted that in A.Y. 2008-09, CIT(A) has held it to be not comparable company on account of functionally dissimilar and the facts for A.Y. 2008-09 and there are no change in the facts in the year under consideration and that of A.Y. 2012-13. With respect to Eclex Services Ltd., he submitted that CIT(A) while deciding the assessee s case in A.Y. 2008-09 has held it to be not functionally comparable to that of assessee and there are no change in the facts between 2008-09 and 2013-14. He therefore, supported the order of CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the materials available on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
