2017 (11) TMI 1131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....RP') dt.30.12.2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has filed concise grounds as under: 1. Comparability Analysis and determination of arm's length price in respect of Software development services 1.1 The Ld. AO/TPO grossly erred on facts in benchmarking fee transactions of the captive software services of the Appellant with companies operating as full-fledged entrepreneurs without considering the differences in the functions performed, assets employed and risk undertaken by the Appellant vis-a-vis comparable companies. 1.2 The Ld. AO/TPO erred in selecting following cases as comparables to the Appellant despite there being significant differences in their functional and risk profile 1.2.1 K....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2.3.2 Eclerx Services Ltd 2.4 The Ld. AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in selecting the following companies as comparable despite the fact that company having extraordinary events during, the relevant previous year 2.4.1 Infosys BPO Ltd. 2.4.2 Accentia Technologies Ltd. 2.4.3 Eclerx Services Ltd. 2.5 The Ld. AO/TPO erred on facts in rejecting the following companies selected by the Appellant as comparable in its transfer pricing study, despite the said company being functionally comparable and qualifies all the filters applied by the TPO in the order u/s 92CA of the Act 2.5.1. R Systems International Ltd. 3. The assessee is a subsidiary of Volt Information Services Inc. US and enga....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ery aspect of functional similarity or dissimilarity. For example, we find that when the assessee raised the objection against the Persistent Systems Limited, the DRP though briefly stated the objections raised by the assessee in para 7.2.3 of the impugned order however, concluding finding of the DRP is based only on the issue of difference of turnover between the assessee and comparables. Therefore it is apparent from the impugned order of the DRP that the DRP has adjudicated only selective points from the objections raised by the assessee instead of going into all aspects of functional comparability. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has relied upon various decisions on the issue of functional dissimilarity of these co....