TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 646
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Income Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai u/s 144C(5) dated 14/07/2010 on certain grounds of appeal. In the appeal, the assessee has challenged the additions on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment as well as non-Transfer Pricing adjustments, as made by lower authorities. Transfer Pricing Grounds 2.1 Although the assessee has raised as many as 9 grounds of appeal, however, Ld. Sr. Counsel for assessee, Shri Farrokh V. Irani, has submitted that the assessee, under the appeal, is pitching only for the exclusion of 4 comparable entities since the exclusion of the same would bring the mean margins of comparable entities within the tolerance range of +5% as provided u/s 92C(2). It has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntities, however, the same could not convince Ld. TPO. Finally, 14 entities were accepted in final set of comparable with mean PLI of 23.33%. In the process of selection, most of the entities selected by the assessee got rejected. A relief of 1.96% was provided on account of working capital adjustment and the net PLI was worked out to be 21.36%. Applying the same, Ld. TPO proposed Transfer Pricing [TP] adjustment of Rs. 43.22 Lacs vide its order u/s 92 CA (3) dated 20/10/2009. 2.4 Incorporating the proposal of Ld. TPO, draft assessment order was passed on 30/11/2009, which was subjected to objections before Ld. DRP. However, Ld. DRP confirmed the adjustment and consequently, final assessment order was passed on 24/08/2010 wherein the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 80] has directed for exclusion of this entity on the ground of change of business model. Both the decisions are for same AY and rendered in the context of assessees having similar functional profile. The other decision as placed on record also support the exclusion of this entity. Facts being pari-materia the same, we direct for exclusion of this entity. (ii) Goldstone Infratech Ltd. (earlier Goldstone Teleservices Ltd.) Similar arguments have been advanced to submit that this entity fails export turnover filter of 25% as applied by Ld. TPO. It has been submitted that BPO division of the entity constitute insignificant portion of overall functional profile and could not be treated as comparable entity. Reliance has been placed on ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Information Technologies Ltd. Pitching for exclusion of this entity, it has been submitted that this entity has outsourced its work instead of carrying out the work by itself which is evident from its Annual Report. The business model being different, Ld. Sr. counsel has pleaded for exclusion of this entity. We find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT V/s PTC Software India Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 598 of 2016] has confirmed the stand of the Tribunal in excluding this entity on the ground of non-comparable business model. The other decisions as placed on record also supports the exclusion of this entity. Respectfully following the same, we direct for exclusion of this entity. 2.6 In results, the Transfer Pricing Grounds....