2016 (11) TMI 1605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l. After perusing the same, we are satisfied with the delay in filing of appeal is unintentional and the same is condoned. The appeal of the assessee is admitted to heard and disposed of on merits. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds in the appeal : 1. "The learned CIT(A)-IT/TP erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 72,79,939 u/s 92 C of the ITA, 1961 made by learned AO to the taxable income of the appellant. 2. The learned CIT-IT/TP erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in rejecting Onward Technologies Limited, having OPTC of (-) 14.86%, as a valid comparable, on the mere ground that the said party is reporting losses consistently. The I-T authorities erred in not appreciat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....echnologies Ltd. from the list of comparables being consistent loss making company. With the execution of Onward Technologies Ltd. the arithmetic mean of remaining comparable companies increased to 16.59% as against the operating margin of assessee at 2.46%. Since, the adjusted operating margin of the comparables was beyond +/-5%, the Assessing Officer made adjustment of Rs. 72,79,939/- in the international transactions of the assessee. 4.2 Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31-12-2012, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the contention of the assessee and upheld the findings of Assessing Officer. Against the order of Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... decided on 10-04-2015. 6. On the other hand Shri P.L. Kureel representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in rejecting Onward Technologies Ltd. as comparable. 7. Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused. In appeal the assessee has made two alternate submissions. The first submission of the assessee is that Onward Technologies Ltd. has been wrongly excluded from the list of comparable, therefore, the same should included in the list of comparables. In an alternate prayer the ld. AR prayed for excluding from the list of comparables Tata Technologies Ltd. having operating margin of 31.18% on the ground of high profit making company. 8. There is no dispute in respect ....