TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing question of law, for our consideration: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, nonconsideration of submissions of the Appellate, the precedents cited by the Appellant and nonconsideration of relevant factors has rendered the impugned order perverse?". 3 On consideration, we admit the appeal on the aforesaid question as it gives rise to a substantial question of law. 4 At the request of the Counsel, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal as a scope of the dispute lies in a very narrow compass. 5 The Appellant is engaged in the activity of research, marketing and consultancy support of services in regard to the economy. During the subject Assessment Year, the Appellant had enter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of proceeding before him had specifically called upon the AO/TPO to furnish the Annexure I to the order passed by the TPO. However, the same was not furnished even to CIT(A). Therefore, in the absence of the working being furnished, the CIT(A) concluded the no comparables exists. Thus, the adjustment on account of Transfer Pricing was deleted. 9 Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, has set aside the order dated 26th May, 2005 of the CIT(A) and restored the issue of arriving at the ALP to the Assessing Officer/ TPO for fresh consideration. We are informed that no proceedings have yet been taken by the Assessing Officer/TPO after the order dated 12th April, 2013 of the Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arable Margins have been calculated as per Annexure I. A total of 102 comparable from a very vide spectrum of ITES, Software Consultancy, business research and analytics, business process outsourcing companies etc. have been selected to find out the industry average for the purposes. The average comes to 20.42% on cost." From the above, it is submitted that Annexure I to the TPO's orders dated 13th December, 2006 in the case of the Appellant was identical to the order dated 13th December, 2006 in the case of M/s. Frost & Sullivan (supra). This fact was also pointed out to the Tribunal. It was in the above circumstances that the Appellant expected the Tribunal in all fairness to decide the issue which arose in their case in accordance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter of general principle would not be sufficient to distinguish the reliance placed by the Appellant on the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Frost & Sullivan (supra). However, when according to the Tribunal, the facts are different in the case relied upon, it should be pointed out in the impugned order and not ignored on the basis of generality. The facts as demonstrated by the Appellant is that both in case of M/s. Frost & Sullivan (supra) and that of the Appellant, prima facie, appear to be identical. 14 In the above circumstances, the Tribunal in the impugned order ought to have considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Frost & Sullivan (supra) in some greater detail pointing out the distinctions before coming to th....