TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0- 2011. The assessee has also filed Stay Application seeking stay of outstanding tax arrears. 2. The Department has filed a letter seeking to withdraw the appeal filed by them. The learned AR representing the assessee did not have any objection. Hence the department's appeal (ITA No. 144/Coch/2015) is dismissed as withdrawn. 3. In assessee's appeal, 15 grounds and various subgrounds are raised. However in the course of hearing, the learned AR had pressed for adjudication only Ground No. 7.1 and Ground No.14. 3.1 The assessee has also raised additional ground vide its petition dated 16.11.2015 and 13.11.2017. However additional ground raised vide petition dated 13.11.2017 was not pressed by the learned AR. The surviving grounds and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the DRP. 4.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee-company in its Transfer Pricing study had selected three companies as comparable. The TPO rejected the comparable selected by the assessee in its TP study. The TPO adopted fresh analysis and arrived at six companies wherein operating profit to operating cost was arrived at 25.78%. One of the six companies selected by the TPO was Informed Tech India Ltd. The TPO in his order dated 23.01.2014 had adopted certain filter in selecting the comparable companies. One of the filters adopted by the TPO is that the operating income should be more than 70% of total revenues. The copy of the order of the TPO is enclosed in the paper book filed by the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for statistical purposes. Ground No.14 (Corporate Tax) 5. The assessee-company had claimed deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act, an amount of Rs. 1,53,15,376. The Assessing Officer denied deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd. [27 Taxmann.com 32]. According to the A.O., the assessee's unit was not approved by an appropriate authority constituted u/s 14 of the Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 and hence was not entitled to deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. The assessee in course of assessment had made an alternative claim that it was entitled to deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act. However, the assessment order in regard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia) [TS-613-ITAT-2013 (Coch)] (v) Fast Booking (I) Private Limited (Delhi High Court) [TS-516-HC-2015 (Del.) (vi) J.C.Infosoft Technologies (ITA No.1135/Del/2011) (vii) Valiant Communications Ltd. (ITA 438-441/2012) (Delhi HC). 5.2 In the above mentioned cases it was held that if section 10B is denied for the reason that units are not having necessary approval from the appropriate authority, the authorities are duty bound to consider the alternative claim of deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act and grant the same, if the conditions are satisfied as prescribed u/s 10A of the I.T.Act. The alternative claim of the assessee that it should be granted deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act was not considered by the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the ground that foreign exchange gains is part of the operating profit margin of the assessee. Further, the assessee in the additional ground before the DRP, had also raised a contention that premium on forward exchange contract is also to be considered as part of the operating margin of the assessee to arrive at the PLI. The DRP directed the TPO to include the foreign exchange gains while arriving at the assessee's PLI. However, the DRP did not give direction with regard to the objections of the assessee that premium on forward exchange contract has to be considered as part of the operating profit margin of the assessee. The Tribunal in the case of Ambattur Clothing Ltd. v. JCIT (ITA Nos.1436 & 1643/Mads/14 & ITA No.910/Mds/2015) had he....