9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export of Information Technology Enable Services (ITES). Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012- 13 on 29.11.2012 declaring income of Rs. 122,61,31,240/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 14.08.2013 was issued and served upon the assessee. AO on the basis of Form 3CEB filed along with the return of income noticed that assessee had international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AE)/ concerns. He, therefore, in order of determine Arm's Length Price (ALP) in relation to the international transactions referred the matter to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO vide order passed u/s 92CA(2) dated 29.01.2016 suggested an adjustment of Rs. 1,94,32,824/-. Subsequently, TPO noticed certain mistake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 4. Before us, Learned DR submitted that during the course of TPO proceedings, TPO rejected/ modified the filters applied by the assessee in the transfer pricing documentation and arrived at the average of 23.73% by including Accentia Technologies Ltd., Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg) and Eclerx Services Ltd. He submitted that the companies namely Accentia Technologies Ltd., Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg) and Eclerx Services Ltd. were rightly considered by the TPO to the comparable companies but CIT(A) has erred in directing their exclusion. He, therefore, submitted that the order of TPO be uph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the nature of its activities are more in the nature of KPO services whereas the services rendered by the Assessee are of ITeS Services. He has therefore held Accentia Technologies Ltd. to be not 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, the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
