2018 (6) TMI 969

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in excluding M/s. Kals Information Systems Ltd without analysing its revenue model and without considering FAR analysis of the assessee company and that of the comparable company? (b) Whether Tribunal is right in excluding the comparable M/s. Transworld Infotech Ltd., (earlier Known as Sterling International Enterprises Limited) from final set of comparable being nonrelated financial year data despite assessee following the method of inclusion of such comparable? (c) Whether Tribunal is right in excluding the comparable M/s. Compucon Software Ltd from final set of comparables being functionally not similar? (d) Whether Tribunal is right in excluding the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er held that the above company is functionally different from the Respondent-Assessee and therefore not comparable. Reliance was placed upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of PTC Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., v/s. DCIT rendered on 30th April, 2013. In the above case, on similar circumstances, the above company was not found comparable with the Assessee therein. The Revenue's Appeal from the above order to this Court being CIT v/s. PTC Software (I) Pvt. Ltd., (Income Tax Appeal No. 732 of 2014) was dismissed on 26th September, 2016. The Revenue is not able to point out any distinction which will make the above decision inapplicable while excluding M/s. Kals Information Systems, as a comparable. The impugned order of the Tribunal exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to have been applied by the TPO to exclude M/s. Transworld Infotech Ltd., also from the list of comparable, this the Tribunal by the impugned order has done. (iii) This finding of fact by the Tribunal, that M/s. Transworld Infotech Ltd., is a possible view. (iv) In the above view, the question No.(b) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 7 Re Question (c): (i) M/s. Compucom Software Ltd., was excluded from the list of comparable by the impugned order of the Tribunal. It was found as a fact that the comparable was not only engaged in running of software development services but also sale of software products end to end mobile solutions as infrastructure services etc.. Further, this ver....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder of the Tribunal noted the facts that turnover of the comparable was to the tune of R.9028 Crores while the turnover of the RespondentAssessee, as noted by the TPO was only Rs. 18 Crores. (iii) The impugned order further records that in view of the difference in turnover between M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd., and the Assessee, the two are not comparable. In fact, the impugned order placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v/s. Agnity India Technologies (P) Ltd., [2013] 219 Taxman 26 - wherein, it was held that the huge turnover difference between the comparable in that case, M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd., with the Assessee therein, coupled with the fact that the Assessee therein was providing only services to its AE wh....