9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereafter ITAT) in IT (TP) A No. 111/Bang/2014 in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2009-2010. 2. The respondent (hereafter Assessee) had preferred the said appeal [IT (TP) A No. 111/Bang/2014] against an assessment order dated 26.03.2013 passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereafter DRP) dated 18.11.2013. The issue raised in the present case relates to the transfer pricing adjustments as directed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereafter TPO) which forms the basis of the addition by the Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO) and the consideration of the DRP. The Assessee was, essentially, aggrieved that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. -16.63% 5 Accentia Technologies Ltd. 46.40% 6 Informed Technologies India Ltd. 22.61% 7 Cosmic Global Ltd. 40.61% 8 Eclerx Services Ltd. 57.46% Average PLI 25.03% 5. The Assessee's PLI was determined at 15.95%, and consequently a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 7,26,28,614/- on account of the ALP determined on the basis of the arithmetic mean of the PLI was recommended. The objections raised by the Assessee before the DRP were rejected and the directions passed by the TPO were affirmed. In the aforesaid context, the Assessee had approached the learned ITAT seeking to explain the four entities, which according to the Assessee were incorrectly included for the purposes of determining the ALP. 6. The learned I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the question whether Infosys BPO Ltd. was required to be excluded as a comparable entity for conducting the bench marking analysis for determining the ALP under Section 92CA of the Act. This question was also considered in some detail by this court on 07.08.2019, and this court found no fault with the decision of the learned ITAT to exclude Infosys. The Court noted that the said company provided business process management services to organisations over a wide range of industries. However, the Assessee, in this case, was a routine captive service provider. The court noted that there was a significant difference in value of intangibles used by Infosys, and the Assessee. In addition, this court found that the risk profile of Infosys was dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel appearing on behalf of the respective assessees have vehemently submitted that once the arm's length price is determined by the Tribunal taking into consideration the relevant guidelines, thereafter challenge to the same cannot be said to be a substantial question of law, to be considered in an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the assessees that Section 260A of the IT Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order of the Tribunal only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Sub-section (6) thereof provides that the High Court may determine any issue which (a) has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal; or (b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
