TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that 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 transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irected exclusion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd (seg), E-clerx Services Ltd, ICRA Online Ltd (seg), Infosys BPO Ltd and Sundaram Business Services Ltd, from 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 conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.2015 : 31. We deal with the comparable companies which the Assessee seeks exclusion. 1. Accentia Technology Ltd., 2. Infosys BPO Ltd. The comparability of these 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 compara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce Data Research Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad (supra), being relevant in this case, are reproduced below- "19.2 We have considered the rival contentions and noticed that this company operates in a different business strategy 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 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said company cannot be taken as comparable because of its uncomparable size of operations. He has contended that the turnover of the said company was many times higher than that of the assessee during the year under consideration. Although the 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. Resp....