Appeal dismissed for lack of legal questions. Upheld disallowance under Section 35D. Transfer pricing issues require evidence.

The appeal was dismissed as no substantial questions of law were entertained. The Tribunal's decision to disallow the claim under Section 35D and not make a further addition under Section 14A was upheld to avoid double disallowance. The issues regarding the inclusion/exclusion of companies as comparables in the computation of income from international transactions were not entertained, with the Court emphasizing that appeals on transfer pricing issues should not be filed unless there is evidence of perversity or failure to adhere to settled legal principles.

---

---

Issues Involved:
(a) Double addition under Section 14A and Section 35D.
(b) Disallowance of deduction under Section 10A due to Sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B.
(c) Inclusion of loss-making company VJIL as a comparable.
(d) Inclusion of Quintegra as a comparable company.
(e) Exclusion of Infosys as a comparable.
(f) Exclusion of Transworld Infotech Ltd. as a comparable.
(g) Exclusion of KALS Information Solutions Ltd. and Helios & Matherson Information Technology Ltd. as comparables.
(h) Exclusion of ICRA Online as a comparable.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Re Question (a):
(i) The Respondent incurred an expenditure of Rs. 33.17 lakhs for increasing its share capital and claimed deduction under Section 35D of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim under Section 35D and also disallowed the same amount under Section 14A, which was objected to by the Respondent but rejected by the DRP.
(ii) The Tribunal held that once a claim under Section 35D is disallowed, there can be no further addition under Section 14A as it would amount to double disallowance.
(iii) The Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that allowing disallowance under Section 14A would indeed result in double disallowance.
(iv) The question did not give rise to any substantial question of law and was not entertained.

Re Question (b):
(i) The issue was agreed upon by both parties to be concluded in favor of the Respondent-Assessee by the decision in CIT v/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 175.
(ii) The question did not give rise to any substantial question of law and was not entertained.

Re Questions (c) to (h):
These questions pertain to the computation of income from international transactions and the inclusion/exclusion of certain companies as comparables. The Court reiterated its view from CIT v/s. Barclays Technology Centre India Pvt. Ltd., 409 ITR 138, emphasizing that appeals on transfer pricing issues should not be filed in a ritualistic manner unless there is evidence of perversity or failure to adhere to settled principles of law.

Re Question (c):
(i) The Tribunal included VJIL as a comparable, noting it was not a persistent loss-making company.
(ii) The Revenue's new argument that VJIL is not comparable due to the cost+ method was not raised before the Tribunal and thus could not be considered.
(iii) The Tribunal's view was not shown to be perverse, and the question was not entertained.

Re Question (d):
(i) The Tribunal included FCS Software Solutions Ltd. as a comparable, finding that 99.99% of its revenue was from software development services, similar to the Respondent.
(ii) This finding of fact did not give rise to any substantial question of law and was not entertained.

Re Question (e):
(i) The Tribunal excluded Infosys Technologies Ltd. as a comparable due to disparity in size, turnover, assets, and risks.
(ii) The Tribunal's decision was supported by the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v/s. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
(iii) The question did not give rise to any substantial question of law and was not entertained.

Re Question (f):
(i) The Tribunal excluded Transworld India Ltd. as a comparable because only 2.21% of its revenue was from software exports, while the Respondent derived 100% of its revenue from software exports.
(ii) The Tribunal's finding was not shown to be incorrect, and the question was not entertained.

Re Question (g):
(i) The Tribunal excluded KALS Information Solutions Ltd. and Helios & Matherson Information Technology Ltd. as comparables, relying on a previous decision in PTC Software India Ltd.
(ii) The issue was concluded by the decision in PTC Software India Ltd., and the question was not entertained.

Re Question (h):
(i) The Tribunal excluded ICRA Online from the list of comparables, finding it engaged in functionally different business activities.
(ii) The Revenue could not point out any flaw in the Tribunal's finding, and the question was not entertained.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and no substantial questions of law were entertained. No order as to costs.

---