TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if his grievances with regard to rejection of certain comparables considered by the TPO, appearing as a part of its ground no.6 is considered, other grounds need not be adjudicated now. Accordingly we are confining ourselves to ground raised by assessee with regard to certain comparables considered by the TPO on which it is aggrieved. 03. Ld. AR submitted that assessee was a 100% export-oriented unit ('EOU' in short) and providing ITE services to its holding company in British Virgin Islands. As per the Ld. AR revenue from such transactions came to Rs. 52,47,44,085/-. Ld. AR submitted that assessee in the TP documentation had adopted TNMM for justifying the price of its international transactions and considered nine comparable companies f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the list of eleven comparables. However, according to him, DRP did not accept the assessee's contentions in so far as it related to Accentia Technologies Ltd. As per the Ld. AR though Accentia Technologies Ltd was a part of assessee's own list of comparables in the TP study, it had before the TPO objected and sought exclusion. As per the Ld. AR assessee had relied on various decisions of this Tribunal in support. However, this was not considered by the TPO. Ld. AR pointed out that similar exclusion was sought before DRP also, but with no result. As per the Ld. AR, AO had thereafter concluded the assessment considering M/s. Accentia Technologies as a good comparable. 06. Ld. AR relying on the decision of coordinate bench in the case of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese company with a ITES company was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Paraxel International (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the Tribunal held as follows on the comparability of the aforesaid companies with a company providing ITES in the following manner:- "10. In grounds No.4 to 6, the assessee has challenged the comparables selected by the TPO for the purpose of TP analysis and as submitted by the learned counsel or the assessee, the assessee is objecting to the selection of only the following five comparables, out of the twelve companies selected as comparables- Sl. No. Company Name 1. Accentia Technologies Limited 2. Cosmic Global Ltd. 3. Eclerx Services Ltd. 4. Genesys International Ltd. 5. Infosys B P O Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of acquiring companies for inorganic growth as its strategy. In earlier years on the reason of acquisition of various companies, being an extraordinary event which had an impact on the profit, this company was excluded. As submitted by the learned counsel, this year also, the acquisition of some companies by that company may have impact on the profit. Considering the profit margins of the company and insufficient segmental data, we are of IT(TP)A No.146/Bang/2015 Page 42 of 52 the opinion that this company cannot be selected as a comparable. Moreover, this is also not a comparable in the case of M/s. Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd. (supra), which indicates that the TPO therein has excluded it at the outset. In view of this, we direct th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned Departmental Representative has contended that the size of operations does not matter as far as selection of comparables is concerned especially in the sector of IT Enabled services, it is observed that similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Agnity Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (219 Taxman 26) holding that huge turnover companies like Infosys and Wipro cannot be considered as comparables with smaller companies like the assessee in the present case. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Agnity Technologies P. Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude Infosys BPO from the list of comparables." 32. As far as Accentia Technology ....