TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order dated 23rd January, 2013 relates to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revenue urges the following question of law for our consideration: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in considering partly irrelevant material and in accepting Capital Trust Limited as a comparable and thereby ignoring accepted Transfer Pricing Audit practice that persistent loss making concerns are not to be considered as comparable in cases of profit making concerns? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in considering partly irrelevant material and rejecting Spanco Telesystems and Solutions Ltd. as a comparable ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ember, 2011 with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).The draft assessment order dated 30th November, 2011 was sustained by DRP's order dated 16th August, 2011. This resulted in a final order being passed on 24th August, 2011 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13)of the Act by the Assessing Officer; (d) Being aggrieved, the Respondent-Assessee carried the issue in Appeal to the Tribunal. By impugned order dated 23rd January, 2013, the Tribunal allowed the Respondent-Assessee's appeal. 4. Re Question (a) : (a) The Respondent-Assessee urged before the Tribunal that the upward adjustment of Rs. 1.60 Crores by the TPO pertaining to Business Support Services rendered to its AE was, inter alia, on the basis of having rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 5. Re Question (b) : (a) It is urged on behalf of the Respondent-Assessee before the Tribunal that the TPO had made an upward Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1.60 Crores pertaining to Business Support Services inter alia as a result of including Spanco Telesystems and Solutions Limited (Spanco) as comparable. This even though the business areas of Spanco were different from that of the Respondent-Assessee; (b) The Tribunal in the impugned order records a finding of fact that Spanco was essentially involved in activities with regard to Telecom and providing call center services while the Respondent-Assessee was providing financial services. Thus, as the activities of Spanco and Respondent-Assessee are functionally different, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e carried the issue from the order of the Tribunal rendered on 4th April, 2012 in M/s. Carlyle India (supra) to this Court in appeal. The appeal being Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 1286 of 2012 (CIT v/s. M/s. Carlyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd.) - wherein this Court refused to entertain the Revenue's appeal as is reflected in the order dated 22nd February, 2013. Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal; (b) In the circumstance, the Tribunal in the impugned order adopted the same comparable it had adopted in the case of M/s. Carlyle India (supra) for the purpose of arriving at the ALP in respect of its International Transaction; (c) Further, Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very f....