TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Act contains errors apparent on the face of the record. 2. The question of law framed by this Court was with respect to exclusion of relative comparables held to be relevant for the purpose of ALP determinations. The assessee was involved in IT enabled services which the judgment noticed was broadly categorised into a) Research and Information Services Division and b) IT Support Services Division. It had challenged the ITAT's order of 15.12.2016 for AY 2011-12. The Revenue had challenged the ITAT's order for the same year, by which the assessee's appeal was partly allowed and the exclusion of 4 comparables were excluded from consideration. The other two questions which this Court answered were in favour of the assessee and against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsider the effect of the decision in Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd. v Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 66 Taxmann.com 246. 5. On the other hand, the court relied upon the Special Bench decision in Maersk Global Centres (India) Pvt. Ltd. v Additional Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 161 TTJ 137. It is argued that the Special Bench decision was disagreed with by this Court in Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11310. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue objected to the maintainability of the review petition firstly arguing that the assessee had approached the Supreme Court, which had rejected its petition. Counsel argued that in such circumstances, the decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seeking leave to file an appeal and having formed an opinion may say "dismissed on merits". Such an order may be passed even ex parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal but of the special leave petition. Even if the merits have been gone into, they are the merits of the special leave petition only. In our opinion neither doctrine of merger nor Article 141 of the Constitution is attracted to such an order. Grounds entitling exercise of review jurisdiction conferred by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or any other statutory provision or allowing re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause permitting to do so would be subversive of judicial discipline and an affront to the order of this Court. However this would be so not by reference to the doctrine of merger." It is evident that the above observation is applicable in the present case, because the rejection of the special leave petition by a non-speaking order, did not preclude the maintainability of the present writ petition. 9. As far as the first argument by the review petitioner, i.e., the answer to the question of bringing to tax the interest amounts goes, this Court is of the opinion that the fact that the order of 07.02.2018 referred to Kusum Health Care had expressly remitted the matter for consideration to the ITAT supports the assessee's submission. All that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve reservations as to the Tribunal's aforesaid view in Maersk Global Centres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). As indicated above, the expression 'BPO' and 'KPO' are, plainly, understood in the sense that whereas, BPO does IT(TP)A No.85/B/16 not necessarily involve advanced skills and knowledge; KPO, on the other hand, would involve employment of advanced skills and knowledge for providing services. Thus, the expression `KPO' in common parlance is used to indicate an ITeS provider providing a completely different nature of service than any other BPO service provider. A KPO service provider would also be functionally different from other BPO service providers, inasmuch as the responsibilities undertaken, the activities perfo....