TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 1003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee has raised various grounds relating to the determination of the arm's length price of the international transaction between the assessee and its associated enterprise. The ground relating to principles of natural justice and also relating to procedure of making reference to the TPO u/s 92CA of the Act are not pressed by the assessee. They are, therefore, rejected as not pressed. The assessee also submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground relating to charge of income-tax. Accordingly this ground of appeal is also rejected. 3. Other than the transfer pricing issue i.e determination of arms length price and the adjustment thereon, the other ground of appeal is against the den....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....off. 8. The learned DR however relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 9. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions, we find that the issue is fairly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogowa Ltd. Respectfully following the same, the AO is directed to allow deduction u/s. 10A of the Act before setting off unabsorbed business losses/depreciation carry forward losses from the earlier years. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 10. Coming to the ground relating to the transfer pricing adjustment, the brief facts are that since there was international transaction between the assessee and its associated enterprises, the TPO u/s 92CA(2) quantified the arms ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and M/s Exensys Software solutions Pvt. Ltd from the list of comparables. However, according to him, the CIT(A) ought not to have excluded the companies having lower margins, as these companies were adopted by the TPO himself. Thus according to him, the CIT(A) ought not to have excluded these companies without giving reasoning for excluding the same. 13. The learned DR on the other hand supported the order of the CIT(A) as far as exclusion of comparables of lower margins is concerned and objected to the exclusion Satyam from the list of comparables on the ground that its results are not reliable. The learned DR submitted that the assessment year before us is 2005-06, whereas the scam in the case of Satyam computers had come to light much l....