TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax) for A.Y.2008-09. 2. The proposed substantial questions of law framed in the Memorandum of appeal by the Appellants-Revenue are quoted below for ready reference:- "(1) Whether, the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case was right in excluding i) Avani Cincom Technologies Ltd.; ii) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd.,; iii) Celestial Biolabs Ltd.,; iv) E-Zest Solutions Ltd.; v) Infosys Technologies Ltd.; vi) Kals Information Systems Ltd.; vii) Lucid Software Ltd.,; viii) Persistent Systems Ltd.; ix) Quintegra Solutions Ltd.; x) Softsol India Ltd., xi) Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg.), xii) Thirdware Solutions Ltd., and xiii) Wipro Ltd., from the list of comparables, holding that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l in other cases, including those of other benches of Tribunal, without going into specific facts in the case of the assessee and without adducing the basis for arriving at the 15% cut off for RPT filter, in the case of assessee ? (6) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating the facts that if any filter or criteria applied by the assessee for search of comparables is accepted or any filter or criteria applied by the TPO is relaxed, the entire accept / reject matrix changes resulting in a new comparable set including those companies which are neither taken by the assessee nor by the TPO in his final comparable set and which may not be finding place in the TP order under section 92CA?....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e bench of this Tribunal on the decision of the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. (supra) for A.Y. 2008-09 had held that this company be omitted from the set of comparables as it was functionally dis-similar from a company which only provides software development services to its AEs, like the assessee in the case on hand. At paras 7.6.1 and 7.6.2 of its order, the co-ordinate bench held as under: 5.4.2. Following the above decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. (supra) for A.Y. 2008-09, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude this company, i.e., Avani Cincom Technologies Ltd. from the list of comparables in the case on hand. M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. (supra) for A.Y. 2008-09, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to omit this company from the list of comparables in the case on hand". For other comparable companies, the learned Tribunal has given the similar findings. 5. Regarding substantial question of law No.7- Learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue Mr.K.V.Aravind submits that he does not press the substantial question of law No.7, as the issue regarding deduction of expenditure incurred for 'Export Turn Over' is also required to be deducted from 'Total Turn Over' for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s.10A of the Act, the controversy is no longer res integra a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missible. 18. XXXXXX 19. In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula is to arrive at the profit from export business, expenses excluded from export turnover have to be excluded from total turnover also. Otherwise, any other interpretation makes the formula unworkable and absurd. Hence, we are sat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g such substantial question of law. On the other hand, the appeals of the present tenor as to whether the comparables have been rightly picked up or not, Filters for arriving at the correct list of comparables have been rightly applied or not, do not in our considered opinion, give rise to any substantial question of law. 56. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the present appeals filed by the Revenue do not give rise to any substantial question of law and the suggested substantial questions of law do not meet the requirements of Section 260-A of the Act and thus the appeals filed by the Revenue are found to be devoid of merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. 57. We make it clear that the same yardsticks and paramete....