TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. Grounds No.1 to 4 raised in this appeal of the assessee involve a common issue relating to the addition made to the total income of the assessee on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs. 1,54,40,203. 3. The assessee in the present case is a company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of C3i Inc., USA. It is a technical help desk for end users and this operation mainly includes providing call centre services for US based pharmaceutical companies as well as globally based clinical research organizations. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 21.9.2009, declaring total income of Rs. 20,250 under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 3,13,59,943 under S.115JB of the Act. During the course o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observations in this regard, seeking the latter's explanation/objections and after taking into consideration the objections raised by the assessee, the new search conducted by him for selecting the appropriate comparables and the analysis of the data base, the relevant annual reports and the information collected under S.133(6) as made by him, the TPO finally selected the following 12 companies as comparables with Arithmetic Mean of their OP/TP at 27.42%. Sl. No. Company Name Operating Rev. Rs. (in crores) PBIT/Cost% 1. Accentia Technologies Limited 78.73 49.40 2. Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg.) 33.13 25.01 3. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. 231.57 0.53 4. Cosmic Global Ltd. 7.7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication of additional filters by the TPO, which according to the assessee, resulted in inclusion of certain companies in the comparability analysis which did not satisfy the test of comparability. The Dispute Resolution Panel did not find merit in the submissions made by the assessee on this issue and holding the action of the TPO to be proper, they declined to interfere with the same. The DRP also overruled the other objections raised by the assessee. Accordingly, final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 6.1.2014 under S.143(3) as per the directions given by the DRP under S.144C(5), making therein the addition of Rs. 1,52,85,215 to the total income on account of TP Adjustment. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....moved by ITAT in 2007-08 and 2008-09 2. Acropetal Technologies (Segmental) 25.01 Accepted by the ITAT in 2008-09 3. Cosmic Global Ltd. 48.20 Accepted by the ITAT in 2007-08 4. Eclerx Services Ltd. 53.34 Removed by the ITAT in 2007-08 and 2008-09 5. Genesys International Ltd. 71.50 Removed by the ITAT in 2008-09 and 2007-08 6. Infosys B P O Ltd. 16.90 Removed by the ITAT in 2007-08 and 2008-09 9. The learned counsel for the assessee has also placed on record copies of the orders of the Tribunal dated 28.5.2014 in ITA No.2183/Hyd/2011 for assessment year 2007-08 and dated 28.5.2014 in ITA No.1794/Hyd/2012 for assessment year 2008-09 and a perusal of the same shows that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to its AE in the relevant international transactions, no addition on account of TP adjustment is required to be made in the case of the assessee. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to verify the claim of the assessee by recomputing the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions of the assessee company with its AE after excluding the aforementioned four entities form the list of final comparables and allow appropriate relief to the assessee on this issue. Grounds No.1 to 4 of the assessee's appeal are accordingly treated as allowed. 11. The grievance raised by the assessee in ground no.5 is that the Assessing Officer has committed a mistake in taking the book profit of the assessee company at Rs. 3,17,24,193 for c....