TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee company filed return of income for the 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 L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tata Elxsi (seg) 18.97 13. Thirdware solutions Ltd 19.35 14. Wipro Ltd (Seg) 28.45 15. Softsol India Ltd 17.89 AVERAGE 23.65 After retaining the 15 comparables as above, the total comparables retained by the 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of Rs. 1,462,923/-. At the threshold, the Ld. AR has pressed for allowing the additional ground bearing nos.11 and 12, which are as under : Ground No.11 : Lucid Software Limited ("Lucid") 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. Ground No.12 : 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 selec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....main. Therefore, if the assessee is permitted to take the objection of taking these two comparables, it will not prolong the proceedings before the TPO / other authorities. It will be in the interest of justice if the assessee is permitted to take these objections before us. Accordingly, we allow these two additional grounds. 08. As we have allowed the raising of the additional ground nos.11 and 12 for exclusion of Lucid Software 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the AO in restricting the quantum of deduction u/s.10B in respect of communication charges and travelling expenses, in violation of the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd (349 ITR 98). As held by the Hon'ble High Court in Tata Elxsi Ltd (supra), expenses excluded from export turnover had to be excluded from the total turnover also while working out the eligible deduction. We direct the AO/TPO to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Tata Elxsi Ltd (supra) and exclude the expenses incurred in foreign currency both from the total turnover as well as the export turnover while computing the deduction u/s.10B. Ground no.III of the assessee is allowed. 14. The next groun....