TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt : Mr C. S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate. O R D E R 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order dated 18th February, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No.679/Del/2014 for Assessment Year ('AY') 2009-10. 2. The Assessee is a private limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rables was 6.95%. The Assessee's PLI i.e. OP/OC was computed at 10.67%. On this basis, the Assessee claimed that the price of the services rendered by it was an ALP. 4. The TPO however, rejected many of the comparables provided by the Assessee and took certain new comparables. One of the comparables taken by the TPO was M/s Goldstone Technologies (Seg) which was a USA based company which had a PL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adopted as a comparable on the ground that, first, it showed segmental results for its US operations and, second, the basis of allocation of costs and computing of segmental profits was not clear. The ITAT observed that it was not clear whether the US profits of the said comparable were entirely from the software operations or included other activities. The ITAT noted that a local software servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ials which were available before the TPO. He submitted that if indeed the position was not clear from the materials available, then the ITAT should have remanded the matter to the TPO for gathering of further materials after giving the Assessee an opportunity. Mr. Sahni submitted that the objection that Goldstone Technologies was not an appropriate comparable was not taken by the Assessee before e....