TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without appreciating the fact that these companies qualify all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO. 3. The DRP erred in directing the TPO to exclude M/s. Hindustan Housing Co. Ltd from the list of final comparables being functionally uncomparable and related party transaction exceeds 25% without appreciating the fact that these companies qualify all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO. 4. The DRP erred in directing the AO to carry out the working capital adjustment as per the actual figures worked out by the assessee without putting any cap on the ground that there is time value of money without appreciating the fact that the TPO had put a cap on the basis of the average cost of working capital of the comparables selected by the TPO and that the accurate details of debtors and creditors of the assessee and the comparables were not available. 5. The DRP erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made u/s 40A(7) by relying on the decision of the Hyderabad tribunal in the case of Capital IQ Information Systems (India) P. Ltd without appreciating the fact that the assessee company had incorporated certain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and has unusual circumstances during the year under consideration. 5. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore has erred in: a. Rejecting H T Music and Entertainment Company Ltd & Tourism Development Corporation Ltd as comparables without appreciating that they are similar to Asian Business Exhibitions and Conferences Ltd, which is accepted to be comparable by the DRP; and b. Rejecting lCRA Management Consulting services Ltd. as a comparable on the ground that it is functionally different from the Respondent. 6. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in making a reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the arm's length price without demonstrating as to how or why it was necessary and expedient to do so. 7. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer and Transfer Pricing Officer in: a. Passing the order without demonstrating that the Respondent had motive of tax evasion; and b. Not appreciating that the charging or computation provision relating to income under the head ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal orders cited by the learned AR of the assessee for same assessment year. We find that in Para 8 of the tribunal order rendered in the case of DCIT vs. Electronics for imaging India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the profile of that assessee was noted and as per the same, that assessee was engaged in Software Development services and sales & Marketing Support Services. Both were benchmarked separately and the paras of the tribunal order referred to before us are in respect of Marketing Support Services. In the present case also, the dispute is regarding Marketing Support Services provided by the assessee. Hence, the profile of the present assessee and Electronics for imaging India Pvt. Ltd. is same. Hence, we respectfully follow this tribunal order and hold that in the present case also, this comparable i.e. Asian Business Exhibition & Conferences Ltd. should be excluded from the final list of comparable. 6. In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed. 7. Regarding the appeal of the revenue, Learned DR of the revenue supported the draft assessment order passed by the AO and the order of TPO. Learned AR of the assessee supported the order of DRP. He also submitted that in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ktg. Ltd., we find that as per the tribunal order rendered in the case of DCIT vs. Electronics for imaging India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), it was held that these two are not good comparables because these are functionally different. We have already noted that this tribunal order is applicable in the present case. Hence, Hence, we respectfully follow this tribunal order and hold that in the present case also, these two comparables i.e. 1) HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd. and 2) Killick Agencies & Mktg. Ltd., are rightly excluded by DRP from the final list of comparable. 10. The next TP issue in the appeal of the revenue is regarding the direction of DRP that Working Capital Adjustment should be granted on actual basis without any cap. 11. In respect of this issue, Learned DR of the revenue supported the draft assessment order passed by the AO and the order of TPO. Learned AR of the assessee supported the order of DRP. He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the tribunal order rendered in the case of ARM Embedded Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT in IT (TP) A No. 1659/bang/2014 dated 31.08.2015, copy on pages 453to 471 of the paper book and our attention....