TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is being conceptualized, client interaction in the initial stages of the contract negotiations, client interaction when the service goes live and decisions regarding and in the interaction when the service goes live and decisions regarding general administration, accounting, legal, finance and personnel matters in the US etc. In our considered opinion, this company cannot be held to be a fit comparable with that of assessee. We accordingly, direct the Ld.AO/TPO to exclude this company from the final list. Cosmic Global Ltd.company was not excluded by the Ld.TPO but has been excluded by the DRP suomoto on the ground that it has a different working model. Further it is noted that such kind of filter has never been applied by the Ld.TPO and that the Ld.TPO has held this company to be functionally similar with assessee. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason for this company to be excluded as the functionality has been not disputed by the revenue. Informed Technologies India Ltd. and Inhouse Production Ltd. - Details based on which these comparables were excluded by the Ld.TPO/DRP are verifiable from the annual reports. We direct the Ld.AO/TPO to verify the details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be adopted for the international transactions for the year under dispute. Reliance in this placed on the following decisions: PCIT v. Springer India (P.) Ltd ([2023] 151 taxmann.com 251 (Delhi)); Aker Powergas (P.) Ltd v DCT ([2023] 147 taxmann.com 253 (Mumbai -Trib.)); F1S Global Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT ([2020] 118 taxmann.com 221 (Delhi - Trib.)); and DC1T v. Festo India (P.) Ltd. [2020] 118 taxmann.com 678 (Bangalore -Trib.). 2.2 Therefore, it is submitted that the methodology as agreed upon in the APA for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2020-21 may be adopted for the year under consideration and the margin arrived at of 18% ought to be considered. It is submitted that no new facts needs to be referred to in order to adjudicate the additional ground. Accordingly, the same is prayed to be admitted. 2.3 The Ld.DR did not object for this ground to be admitted. 2.4 Accordingly, considering the submissions of both the sides, ground no. 8 raised in the application for admission of additional grounds stands admitted. 2.5 On perusal of ground no. 8, it is noted that assessee has entered into advance pricing agreement with CBDT for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comparables sought for exclusion / inclusion. A. ICRA Online Ltd. Ground no. 3(m) It is submitted that ICRA Online Ltd. is engaged in the business of outsourced services, information services and software products and services. The company provides services to clients in the areas of data extraction, aggregation, electronic conversion of financial statement, validation and analysis, accounting and finance research and analytics. ICRA Online Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of ICRA Ltd., a leading credit rating agency. ICRA Online has two strategic lines of business- Knowledge Process Outsourcing; and Information Services and Technology Solutions The Ld.AR submitted that assessee provides pure back office support services to the AEs which can be understood from the functions performed. He submitted that assessee therefore cannot be comparable with ICRA Online Ltd. that has admittedly provides KPO services. She placed reliance on the following decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in support of her submissions that this comparable deserves to be excluded. Element14 India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in (2021) 126 taxmann.com 333 Acusis S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company was excluded by the TPO for the reason that no data was available. The DRP upheld the exclusion of the company by holding that the company incurred expenditure in foreign currency towards purchase of database which makes the company incomparable to the assessee. B. Informed Technologies India Ltd. The TPO excluded the company from the final list of comparables for the reason that the company had received rental income during the financial year which was more than the operating income from the BPO segment. The DRP upheld the exclusion of the company for the reason that the company fails the service revenue filter of 75% applied by the TPO and that no segmental details are available. C. Cosmic Global Ltd. In this regard, it is submitted that the company was suo moto excluded by the DRP on the ground that the factum of incurring of sub-contracting expenses by the company suggests a different working model which may have a significant effect on the margin and that therefore it cannot be held to be comparable to the Assessee. The Ld.DR on the contrary relied on the observations of the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (reported in [2012] 24 taxmann.com 222 (SC)) held that that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under the provisions of section 32 of the Act. 8.2 It is submitted that the assessee thus raised claim for depreciation of Rs. 2,10,07,285/- on balance goodwill of Rs. 16,80,58,278/- (Rs.18,17,47,278 Rs. 1,36,89,000) under Section 32 of the Act. However, the Ld.AO did not allow the same in the draft assessment order. 8.3 The Assessee in its objections before the DRP, challenged the same. The DRP disallowed the claim on the ground that the same was not claimed in the original return of income. 8.4 In any event, it is submitted that the claim raised during the course of the assessment proceedings is a valid claim and ought not to have been rejected on the mere ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Wipro Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2015] 62 taxmann.com 26. 8.5 The Ld.DR submitted that assessee had raised the additional claim of depreciation during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
