TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejection of Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - V [Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO')]/ Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4) (Learned Assessing Officer ('AO')] an in making an adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant in respect of its software development services and customer support services provided to its associated enterprises holding that the international transactions do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act').[corresponding to ground 2] 3. That the Learned CIT(A)erred in upholding the Learned TPO approach of rejecting the Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by the Appellant. [corresponding to ground 3] 4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding inclusion of companies [(a) KALS Information Systems Limited, (b) Bodhtree Consulting Limited, (c) Tata Elxsi Limited, (d) Sasken Communication Technologies Limited, (e) Persistent systems Limited, (f) Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited in Software Development services segment) and (a) Infosys BPO Limited, (b) Accentia Technologies Limited, (c) Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n upholding the Learned TPO's approach of applying the turnover < 1 crore for rejection of comparable companies. [corresponding to ground 5(d)] 9. That the Learned CIT (A) erred in upholding application of different quantitative and qualitative filters byte Learned TPO in respect of the customer support services segment and in doing so grossly erred in upholding the Learned TPO's approach of rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant for having different accounting year (i.e. companies having accounting year other than March31orcompanies whose financial statements were for a period other than 12 months) .. [corresponding to ground 6(a)] 10. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding application of different quantitative and qualitative filters byte Learned TPO in respect of the customer support services segment and in doing so grossly erred in Upholding the Learned TPO:s approach of applying the turnover < 1crore for rejection of comparable companies. [corresponding to ground 6(b)] 11. That the Learned CIT(A)erred in upholding application of different quantitative and qualitative filters byte Learned TP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant prays to allow the benefit of range of+/-5% as provided in proviso to Section92C(2) of the Act, while determining the arm's length price .. [corresponding to ground 13] 19. That the Appellant prays to compute the arm's length price by considering correct operating margins of someof the comparable companies. [corresponding to ground 14] 20. The Learned AO and consequently the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law by not considering the export receipts for the period January to March 2009 as part of the export turnover while computing deduction under Section 10A of the Act on the pretext that the Appellant was unable to produce the correspondingsoftex forms. [corresponding to ground 15] 21. The Learned AO and consequently the Learned CIT(A) has erred in facts, by not considering the softexform for March 2009 which was submitted by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings.[corresponding to ground 16] That the Appellant craves leave to add to and / or alter, amend, rescind or modify the grounds taken hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 3. Similarly, the grounds ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in not appreciating the fact that if any filter or criteria applied by the assessee is accepted or if any filter or criteria applied by theTPO is relaxed, the entire accept / reject matrix changes resulting in a new set of comparables including those comparables which are neither taken byte assessee or the TPO and which do not find a place in the order under Section 92CA. 8. The CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to follow the ratio laid down by theHon'ble Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Limited 349 ITR 98 and exclude the telecommunication charges / freight charges incurred in foreign currency from the total turnover also while computing the deduction u/s 10A of theI.T. Act as the decision of the High Court is binding, without appreciating thefact that there is no provision in Section 10A that such expenses should bereduced from the total turnover also, as clause (iv) of the explanation toSection10A provides that such expenses are to be reduced only from theexport turnover. 9. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Tata Elxsi Limited 349 ITR 98 has not been accepted by the depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for exclusion of these comparables, he submitted that ld. AR of assessee has filed a chart in this regard and reliance is placed on the Tribunal order rendered in the case of M/s. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in IT (TP)A No. 199/Bang/2014 dated 25.01.2019, copy available on pages 3280 to 3298 in case law compendium. It was pointed out that for the exclusion of these six comparables in software development segment, it was held that all these six comparables should be excluded and while holding so, the Tribunal has followed another Tribunal order rendered in the case of Planet Online Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 464/Hyd/2014 dated 30.01.2015 and relevant Para of that Tribunal order has been reproduced by the Tribunal. In reply, the ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. She also submitted that ld. CIT(A) has excluded Infosys Ltd. without any discussion and hence, it should be held that exclusion of Infosys Ltd. is not justified. She also drawn our attention to page no. 10 of the TPO's order and pointed out that a specific finding has been given by the TPO that during 1997 to 2010, the turnover of Infosys Ltd. has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficant intangibles and has huge revenues from software products and therefore,it cannot be compared with company providing simple software development services. In the case of M/s. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), it was noted by the Tribunal in Para no. 16 that this company was engaged in providing software development services to its AE. In the present case also, we are examining the exclusion of these six comparables in respect of software development services segment of the assessee. This is also seen that this Tribunal order is for same Assessment Year i.e. Assessment Year 2009-10 and hence, in our considered opinion, this Tribunal order is applicable in the present case particularly when no difference in facts could be pointed out by ld. DR of revenue. For ready reference, we reproduce Para nos. 14 to 16 of this Tribunal order from pages 3288 to 3298 of case law compendium. The same are as under. "14. Remaining grounds i.e. 12 to 15 are in respect of assessee's claim for exclusion of various comparables i.e. 1) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. 2) Tata Elxsi Ltd. (segment) 3) Sasken Communic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ta Elxsi Ltd. (Seg.) The relevant observations of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in respect to each of the aforesaid companies are reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity: "26.1 Bodhtree Consulting Ltd.:- As far as this company is concerned, it is not in dispute that in the list of comparables chosen by the assessee, this company was also included by the assessee. The assessee, however, submits before us that later on it came to the assessee's notice that this company is not being considered as a comparable company in the case of companies rendering software development services. In this regard, the ld. counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nethawk Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA No.7633/Mum/2012, order dated 6.11.2013. In this case, the Tribunal followed the decision rendered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wills Processing Services (I) P. Ltd., ITA No.4547/Mum/2012. In the aforesaid decisions, the Tribunal has taken the view that Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. is in the business of software products and was engaged in providing open & end to end web solutions software consultancy and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er operating its business in India and does not possess either any brand value or own any intangible or intellectual property rights (IPRs). It was also submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that :- (i) the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.227/Bang/2010 has held that a company owning intangibles cannot be compared to a low risk captive service provider who does not own any intangible and hence does not have an additional advantage in the market. It is submitted that this decision is applicable to the assessee's case, as the assessee does not own any intangibles and hence Infosys Technologies Ltd. cannot be comparable to the assessee; (ii) the observation of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.3856 (Del)/2010 at Para 5.2 thereof, that Infosys Technologies Ltd. being a giant company and market leader assuming all risks leading to higher profits cannot be considered as comparable to captive service providers assuming limited risk ; (iii) the company has generated several inventions and filed for many patents in India and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the list of comparable companies. 26.3 KALS Information Systems Ltd.:- As far as this company is concerned, it is not in dispute before us that this company has been considered as not comparable to a pure software development services company by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Trilogy e-business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal:- "(d) KALS Information Systems Ltd. 46. As far as this company is concerned, the contention of the assessee is that the aforesaid company has revenues from both software development and software products. Besides the above, it was also pointed out that this company is engaged in providing training. It was also submitted that as per the annual report, the salary cost debited under the software development expenditure was Rs. 45,93,351. The same was less than 25% of the software services revenue and therefore the salary cost filter test fails in this case. Reference was made to the Pune Bench Tribunal's decision of the ITAT in the case of Bindview India Private Limited Vs. DCI, ITA No. ITA No 1386/PN/1O wherein KALS as comparable w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng/201 1, order dated 29.3.2013. Following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal:- II. UNREASONABLE COMPARABILITY CRITERIA : 19. The learned Chartered Accountant pleaded that out of the six comparables shortlisted above as comparables based on the turnover filter, the following two companies, namely (i) Tata Elxsi Ltd; and (ii) M/s. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd., deserve to be eliminated for the following reasons : (i) Tata Elxsi Ltd., : The company operates in the segments of software development services which comprises of embedded product design services, industrial design and engineering services and visual computing labs and system integration services segment. There is no sub-services break up/information provided in the annual report or the databases based on which the margin from software services activity only could be computed. The company has also in its response to the notice u/s. 133(6) stated that it cannot be considered as comparable to any other software services company because of its complex nature. Hence, Tata Elxsi Ltd., is to be excluded from the list of comparables. (ii) Flextron....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. This segment qualifies all the filters applied by the TPO." Regarding Flextronics Software Systems, the following extract from page 143 of TPO's order was read out by him as his submissions : "It is very pertinent to mention here that the company was considered by the taxpayer as a comparable for the preceding assessment year i.e., AY 2006-07. When the same was accepted by the TPO as a comparable, the same was not objected to it by the taxpayer. As the facts mentioned by the taxpayer are the same and these were there in the earlier FY 2005-06, there is no reason why the taxpayer is objecting to it. How the company is functionally similar in the earlier FY 2005-06 but the same is not functionally similar for the subsequent FY 2006-07 even when no facts have been changed from the preceding year. Thus the taxpayer is arguing against this comparable as the company was not considered as a comparable by the taxpayer for the present FY 2006-07." 21. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the facts and materials on record. After considering the submissions, we find that Tata Elxsi and Flextronics are functionally different from that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me from sale of software services as well as products. Therefore, unless segmental details are available, the company cannot be treated as comparable. Moreover, in case of M/s 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. Vs. DCIT, IT(TP) No. 1303/Bang/2012, the ITAT Bangalore Bench held as under: "We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is seen from the details on record that this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., is engaged in product development and product design services while the assessee is a software development services provider. We find that, as submitted by the assessee, the segmental details are not given separately. Therefore, following the principle enunciated in the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Telecordia Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that in the absence of segmental details / information a company cannot be taken into account for comparability analysis, we hold that this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd. ought to be omitted from the set of comparables for the year under consideration. It is ordered accordingly." Though, the aforesaid finding of the coordinate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce these six comparables are excluded. Accordingly ground nos. 12 and 13 are allowed and ground no. 14 is partly allowed." 8. We have gone through these paras of the Tribunal order and we find that in the facts of present case, this Tribunal order is applicable and in this Tribunal order, exclusion of following six comparables is approved. i) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. ii) Infosys Ltd. iii) Persistent Systems Ltd. iv) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. v) Tata Elxsi Ltd. vi) Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd. Respectfully following this Tribunal order, we hold that in the present case also, these six comparables should be excluded from the final list of comparables. 9. Now we discuss and decide about the assessee's request for exclusion of four comparables in ITES segment. As per the chart filed by the assessee in respect of this request for exclusion of four comparables in ITES segment, reliance has been placed on Tribunal order rendered in the case of Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in IT(TP)A Nos. 184 & 228/Bang/2014 dated 31.08.2017, copy available on pages 3181 to 3201 of case law compendium and in particular, our a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial revenue has been earned by the said company from the business activity of medical transcription apart from billing and collection as well as medical coding activity. (i) On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that this company satisfies the filter test applied by the TPO for selecting companies in the category of Information Technology Service (ITES) company. The assessee is also engaged in the activity of providing ITeS to its AE and therefore, both the assessee as well as Accentia Technologies Ltd., are engaged in the similar business activity. He has referred to the findings of the TPO and the DRP and submitted that the DRP has rejected the objections raised by the assessee against this company. Therefore, this company is a good comparable for determination of the ALP in respect of international transactions of the assessee. (ii) We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The first objection has been raised by the learned AR of the assessee on account of extraordinary event of acquisition/purchase of business by Accentia Technologies Ltd., whereby M/s. Oak Technologies Inc, USA has been acq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is engaged in the high-end services and therefore, this company is basically a KPO and not a BPO. He has referred to Annual Report of this company at page 26 of the paper book -II and submitted that as it is clear from the Annual Report that this company is a knowledge process outsourcing (K. P. O) providing data analytics and data process solutions to global enterprise clients. This company supports core and complex activities for its clients using proprietary processes and a scalable offshore delivery model. This company has access to the capital market and therefore, this company is a public listed KPO company in India. The company is also engaged in consulting services and process outsourcing as well as in the activity of process re- engineering and automation apart from middle office and back office support to capital market. Therefore, keeping in the diversified high-end services, this company cannot be considered as functionally comparable with the assessee. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reduce risk by enhancing efficiencies and by providing valuable insights that empower better decisions. M/s eClerx Services Pvt. Ltd. is also claimed to have a scalable delivery model and solutions offered that include data analytics, operations management, audits and reconciliation, metrics management and reporting services. It also provides tailored process outsourcing and management services along with a multitude of data aggregation, mining and maintenance services. It is claimed that the company has a team dedicated to developing automation tools to support service delivery. These software automation tools increase productivity, allowing customers to benefit from further cost saving and output gains with better control over quality. Keeping in view the nature of services rendered by M/s eClerx Services Pvt. Ltd. and its functional profile, we are of the view that this company is also mainly engaged in providing high-end services involving specialized knowledge and domain expertise in the field and the same cannot be compared with the assessee company which is mainly engaged in providing low-end services to the group concerns. 83. For the reasons given above, we are of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... kind of business activity in providing the management service of business processes and is not directly providing any business process outsource services. Thus, this company cannot be considered as a functionally comparable. (i) On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that this company is in the business activity of providing ITeS and therefore, it satisfies all the tests and filters applied by the TPO. The functional comparability has been examined by the DRP and it was found that this company is in the same line of activity under the category of ITeS. He has relied upon the order of the authorities below. (ii) We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. We note that in Para 16.2.15 of the Annual Report of this company, it has been reported that there was amalgamation w.e.f. 1/4/2008. The relevant part of the information provided in the Annual Report reads as under: "Amalgamation of PAN Financial Services India Private Limited The Board of Directors in their meeting held on October 6. 2008. approved, subject to the approval of the Honorable High Courts of Karnat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee submitted that the assessee raised objection against inclusion of this company in the list of comparables before the TPO on the ground that this company has major revenue from translation services. Therefore, this company is functionally different from the services provided by the assessee to its AE. The learned AR of the assessee has referred to the Annual report of this company and submitted that that out of the total revenue of Rs. 7,37,02,584/-, this company has earned revenue from translation charges to the tune of Rs. 6,99,35,756/-. Therefore, substantial part of the revenue has been earned from the activity of translation. The learned AR of the assessee has further pointed out that even otherwise this company is outsourcing the work of translation as it is evident from the profit and loss account of this company that an amount of Rs. 3,00,25,326/- has been paid on account of translation charges. Thus, learned AR of the assessee has submitted that this company cannot be considered as functionally comparable with the assessee for the purpose of determining the ALP. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not a comparable company. The TPO, though considered these submissions, rejected the same, on the reason that this does not impact the profit margin of the company. Opposing the view taken by the TPO, it is submitted that this company cannot be selected as comparable, as M/s. Capital IQ Information systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad similar issue was discussed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal(Delhi) in the case of Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd. (supra), vide paras 13.2 to 13.3 which read as under- 13.2. Now coming to the factual matrix of this case, we find from the material on record that outsourcing charges of this case constitute 57.31% of the total operating costs. This does not appear to us to be a valid reason for eliminating this case from the list of comparables. On going through the Annual accounts of Cosmic Global Limited, a copy of which has been placed on record, we find that its total revenue from operations are at Rs. 7.37 crore divided into three segments, namely, Medical transcription and consultancy services at Rs. 9.90 lacs, Translation charges at Rs. 6.99 crore and Accounts BPO at Rs. 27.76 lac. The Id. AR has made out a case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... could not point out any difference in facts. Therefore, respectfully following these two tribunal orders, we decline to interfere in the order of DRP in respect of this issue regarding exclusion of 1) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., 2) Tata Elxsi Ltd., 3) Persistent Systems Ltd. and 4) Infosys Ltd. in IT segment and in ITES segment, we uphold the exclusion of 1) Accentia Technologies Ltd., 2) Infosys BPO Ltd., 3) Cosmic Global Ltd. and 4) Eclerx Services Ltd. Remaining grounds on TP issues are rejected as not pressed as no argument was advanced on that account." 11. We find that in that case, the Tribunal has followed another Tribunal order rendered in the case of e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in IT(TP)A No. 1845/Bang/2013 dated 10.11.2015 and the relevant paras of this Tribunal order has been reproduced by the Tribunal. The ld. DR of revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and in the case of Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) or in the case of e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). Hence we hold that this Tribunal order is applicable in the present case. As per this Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....self in the show cause notices hasproposed the aforesaid two companies for inclusion in the final set ofcomparables, but had thereafter came to the view that the workingcapital adjustment for both these companies exceeded 4% of profits andtherefore these two companies could not be taken as propercomparables. At para 13.1 (b), the TPO has rendered the followingreasoning for excluding these two companies as under :- "13.1 (b) Two companies proposed in the show cause notice arefunctionally similar to the taxpayer. However, when the working capitalof these companies is considered, the profit margin get distorted. It maynot be out of context to mention that our search for comparable isprimarily focus on those companies whose profit margin is predominantlyform operating business and not from financial activities. This prerequisiteis not different in case of software development companies asthey do not need any interest bearing funds to manage their workingcapital requirement. Therefore, with the purpose to identify only thoseuncontrolled comparables who are having profit margin from coreoperating activities and not from financial activities, the following twocompanies hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f profits and could not be therefore taken as propercomparables. Reasons given by the TPO for excluding these two companies, appear at paras3.6.5.1, of her order which reads as under : b) Two companies proposed in the show-cause notice are functionally similar to thetaxpayer. However, when the working capital of these companies is considered, theprofit margin gets distorted. It may not be out of context to mention that oursearch for comparable is primarily focus on those companies whose profit margin ispredominantly from operating business and not from financial activities. Thisprerequisite is not different in case of software development companies as they donot need any interest bearing funds to manage their working capital requirement.Therefore, with the purpose to identify only those uncontrolled comparables whoare having profit margin from core operating activities and not from financialactivities, the following two companies having working capital impact of more than4% on profit have been excluded. 21. TPO has accepted that these companies were functionally similar to that of theassessee. However, according to her, the margins of these companies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s it appears at para 3.7, reads as under : 3.7. Working Capital Adjustment: The working capital adjustment is computed as per the formula given in Annexure to the OECD Guidelines, 2009. In this case, the average PLR adopted by SBI the largest scheduled bank, for short term working capital loans for the relevant FY 2008-09 is considered. The average PLR of 12.50% p.a was adopted by the TPO while computing the working capital adjustment. The working capital adjustment is restricted to the average cost of capital computed at 1.71% in the case of the uncontrolled comparables selected by the TPO. Hence, the working capital adjustment in the case of the taxpayer is allowed as per the calculation in annexure -C or the average cost of capital to the comparables whichever is the least. The derailed discussion on this is given in the Annexure-D to the order. The computation of the working capital adjustment is annexed to this order as Annexure C. TPO had restricted the cost of capitalto 1.71%. Rationality for such an upper limit beingplaced on working capital adjustment was an issue which had come up before this Tribunal inthe case of M/s. Rambu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... point out any difference in facts and hence, respectfully following this Tribunal order we hold and direct the TPO that following two companies i.e. Thinksoft Global Services Limited and F C S Software Solutions Limited be included in the final list of comparables. Ground no. 15 is also allowed. 15. Now we discuss and decide ground nos. 20 and 21. In this regard, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that as per ground no. 6 raised before CIT(A), this was the grievance of the assessee that export receipts for the months of January, February and March 2009 should also be considered as part of export turnover because the AO has excluded the turnover of these three months for the purpose of computing deduction allowable to assessee u/s. 10A of IT Act. He also submitted that the issue regarding allowability of deduction u/s. 10A was decided by CIT(A) as per Para 3 of his order and in the same, the only issue decided by him is this as to whether the value of telecommunication expenses reduced from export turnover by the AO should also be reduced from total turnover or not. But the issue raised by assessee in ground no. 6 raised before CIT(A) was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tical purposes. 19. In the result, the assessee's appeal stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above. 20. Now we take up the revenue's appeal. It was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that ground no. 1 is general and regarding ground no. 2, she submitted that as per Para nos. 12.2.5 and 12.2.6 of his order, the ld. CIT(A) has excluded one comparable i.e. Infosys Ltd. without any discussion. While deciding the appeal of assessee, we have already held that exclusion of Infosys Ltd. by CIT(A) in this manner is not proper but we have excluded this comparable by way of a detailed discussion by following the Tribunal order rendered in the case of M/s. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). Since this comparable company i.e. Infosys Ltd. stands excluded on merit, this ground of revenue's appeal is rejected. 21. Regarding ground nos. 3,4 and 5 of the revenue's appeal, it was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that foreign exchange loss / gain should not be considered as operating gain / loss. As against this, the ld. AR of assessee submitted that the same is operating gain / loss. At this juncture, it was point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nover, it will give absurd result because such exchange fluctuation gain / loss will increase or decrease the operating profit being the numerator but the corresponding turnover will not be part of denominator if the same is not in relation to the current year's turnover. Hence we set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and restore back the matter to his file for fresh decision in the light of above discussion after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. Accordingly, ground nos. 3, 4 and 5 are allowed for statistical purposes. 23. Regarding ground no. 6, it was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that the only grievance of the assessee before CIT(A) was regarding this that the AO / TPO have erred in law as well as facts by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the assessee using export earnings greater than 75% of the sales as a comparability criterion and this issue was raised by assessee before CIT(A) as per ground no. 12.(c) and this issue was decided by CIT(A) against the assessee and for that, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. She drawn our attention to Para nos. 15.1.8 to 15.1.9 of the order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mer engagement, sale & retention and quality assurance for business. 4. Cosmic Global Ltd. Provides translation services, Localisation and DTP services, Transcription outsourcing business, Accounting operations. 5. Eclerx Services Ltd. Data content management, data analysis and process improvement task, trade support and validation, settlements and clearing, asset servicing, risk management and reconciliation. 6. Informed Technologies Ltd. Development & assessment of telecommunication, network. 7. Infosys BPO Limited Business platforms, customer service outsourcing, finance and accounting, human resource outsourcing, legal process outsourcing. 8. Microland Ltd. Infrastructure management and modernisation, end-user services, Cloud Computing, Collaboration and Mobility. 15.3.2. In view of the aforesaid, I see no reason to exclude any further com parables on the ground of functional dissimilarity. as the business of the comparables vis-à-vis the assessee company falls within the same sector. Thus. the 08 comparables mentioned above shall form the final comparables on which the ALP adjustment needs to be carried out by....