TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances of the case and in law, 1. the order of the learned AO, based on directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in assessing the total income at Rs. 2,86,60,019 as against returned income of NIL computed by the Appellant; Grounds of appeal relating to corporate tax matters 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, based on the directions of the DRP, the learned AO has erred in law and in fact by holding that the foreign currency expenses are towards technical services rendered outside India and should be reduced from "export turnover" while computing the profits eligible for deduction under Section 1O A of the Act. 3. On the facts and I the circumstances of the case and in law, based on the directions of the DRP, the ld. AO has erred in law by no considering that, if the telecommunication expenses (i.e. internet and ISDN service charge) and foreign currency expenses are reduced from export turnover, an equal amount should also be from total turnover for computing the deduction u/s 10 A of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, based on the directions of the DRP, the ld. AO has erred in law and in facts, by not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated results in only those cases where the medical transcription services related income of the Indian operations constituted more than 75 percent of the consolidated company-widel segmental revenues; 10. the learned TPO erred in obtaining information which was not available in public domain by exercising powers u/s 133(6) of the Act and relying on the information for comparability analysis; 11. the learned AOITPO erred by accepting certain companies using unreasonable comparability criteria; 12. the learned AOITPO erred by not providing the Assessee any opportunity of being heard in certain cases and accepting some companies without communicating the reasons thereof; 13. the learned AOITPO erred in not considering the foreign exchange fluctuation gain (loss) as part of the operating income while computing the operating margin; 14. the learned AOITPO erred in not making suitable adjustments on account of differences in the risk profile of the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparables, while conducting comparability analysis; 15. the ld. AO/TPO erred in computing the arms length price without giving benefit of += 5% under the proviso to sec.92C of the Act. 16. the ld. AO/TP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rables i.e. 1)M/s Bodhtree consulting Ltd.,(Seg.), 2)M/s Eclerx Services Ltd., and 3) Mold Tek Technologies Ltd., (Seg.). Regarding exclusion of this group, he submitted that these companies are functionally different because these companies are performing functions in the nature of KPO and therefore, should be excluded from the list of final comparables. Reliance was placed on the Tribunal order rendered in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd., in IT(TP)A No.1086(Bang.)/2011 dated 30-04-2013, copy available on pages 527 to 564 of the paper book and in particular, our attention was drawn to para-36 & 37 of this Tribunal order which are as under; "36. As far as 3rd group is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this group consists of - 1) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. 2) Eclerx Services Ltd. 3) Mold Tek Technologies Ltd. 37. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, these companies are functionally different from the assessee. He submitted that the assessee is basically a 'call centre', whereas these three companies are into the business of 'knowledge process out sourcing (KPO)'. He submitted that while the assessee is into s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1- 200 Crores, the turnover filter of 1/10th or 10 times of the turnover of the assessee company is being applied. Thereafter, he submitted that the third group of which exclusion is being requested by the assessee consists of five companies i.e. 1) M/s Vishal Information Technologies Ltd., 2) M/s Informed Technologies India Ltd., 3) M/s Accentia Technologies Ltd., (Seg.), 4) M/s Spanco Ltd., (Seg.) & 5) M/s Asit C Mehta Financial Services Ltd. He submitted that exclusion of this group of five companies is being requested by the assessee on account of employees' cost filter. He placed reliance on the Tribunal order rendered in the case of First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) and our attention was drawn to para-35 of this Tribunal order available on page nol.554 of the paper book. Thereafter, he submitted that the assessee is seeking exclusion of one more group of companies consists of two companies i.e. M/s Maple E-solutions Ltd., and 2)M/s Triton Corp Ltd. and the assessee is requesting for exclusion of this group on this basis that these companies should be rejected for fraudulent financial statement and in this regard, reliance has been placed on the Tribunal or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....excess of 10 times of the turnover of the assessee company and hence, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude these three companies also from the list of final comparables by applying this turnover filter. 12. Regarding third group consisting of five companies i.e. 1) M/s Vishal Information Technologies Ltd., ,2) Informed Technologies Ltd., 3) Accentia Technologies Ltd., (Seg.) 4) M/s Spanco Ltd., (Seg.) and 5) M/s Asit C Mehta Financial Services Ltd., We find that the exclusion of this group is being requested by applying the employees' cost filter. In para-35 of the same Tribunal order rendered in the case of M/s First Advantage Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd., (Supra), the Tribunal had considered three companies out of these five companies in the present case, i.e. 1) M/s Vishal Information Technologies Ltd., 2) Informed Technologies Ltd., 3) Accentia Technologies Ltd.(Seg.) and it was held by the Tribunal in that case that these three companies are excluded because the companies were having employees' cost of less than 25%. Regarding the remaining two companies i.e. M/s Spanco Ltd., (Seg.) and M/s Asit C Mehta Financial Services Ltd., the issue was not before the Tribunal in that case and....