2017 (6) TMI 651

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessment year 2008-09 declaring total income of Rs. 1,15,54,520/- and thereafter filed a revised return on 02.07.2009 declaring income of Rs. 1,60,79,170/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and was referred to the TPO for bench marking the international transactions u/s.92 of the IT Act. 03. The assessee filed the TP study before the TPO wherein the following 18 comparables were selected : Sl. Name of the company 1 Aarman Software P. Ltd 2. Akshay Software Technologies Ltd 3. Applabs Technologies P. Ltd 4. Computech International Ltd 5. Core Projects & Technologies Ltd 6. Igate Global Solutions Ltd 7. Mindtree Ltd 8. Nihar Info Global Ltd 9. Orient Information Technology Ltd 10 Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he TPO were 20 companies. These are as under : Sl No. Name of the company OP/TC % 1. Avani Cincom Technologies 25.62 2. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd 18.72 3. Celestial Biolabs 87.94 4. e-Zest Solutions Ltd 29.81 5. Flextronics (Aricent) 7.86 6. iGate Global Solution Ltd 13.09 7. Infosys 40.37 8. Kals Information Systems Ltd (seg 41.94 9. LGS Global Ltd 27.52 10.  Mindtree Ltd (seg) 16.41 11. Persistent Systems Ltd 20.31 12. Quintegra Solutions Ltd 21.74 13. R Systems International (seg) 15.30 14. R. S. Software (India) Ltd 7.41 15. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd (seg) 18.97 16. Tata Elxsi (seg) 18.97 17. Thirdware solutions Ltd 19.35 18. Wipro Ltd (Seg) 28.45 19. Softsol Indi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bodhtree Consulting Limited ("Bodhtree") should be rejected as a comparable The Appellant submits that the Ld. TPO has erred in including Lucid as a functionally comparable company to the Appellant while doing the comparability analysis. 05. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that these two comparables though were selected by the TPO, the assessee has not raised objection against the inclusion of these two comparables as the specific details of the financials were not available in the public domain. After filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee noticed that the details of these two comparables are available in the public domain and on the basis of said details and also in accordance of the Tribunal decisions, it wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ftware Ltd and Bodhtree Consulting Ltd, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the TPO with a direction to examine afresh on the basis of the objections now raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the two additional grounds 11-12 are allowed for statistical purpose. 09. The assessee has raised grounds 1 to 9 which pertain to TP adjustment. It has been submitted that the other 11 companies, are required to be excluded as those companies are not similar functionally to that of the assessee. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal in the case of Infineon Technology India P. Ltd (supra), had examined the functional similarity of these comparables and thereafter had excluded these comparables from the list of comparables....