TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Dispute Resolution Panel, for the A. Y. 2010-11. IT(TP)A.256/Bang/2015 - By the Revenue : 2. First we take up the appeal of the revenue. Grounds raised are as under :- The ld. DR of revenue submitted that Grounds 1, 7 & 8 are general and no separate adjudication is called for in respect of these grounds. Regarding remaining grounds, he supported the draft assessment order and he also filed written submissions which mainly say that in T. P. analysis, the comparability cannot be decided on the basis of precedent case as the facts of each case on record needs to be addressed. Learned AR of the assessee supported the order of DRP. He also submitted that the issue involved in Grounds No. 2 & 3 in respect of corporate tax is covere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (Supra), it was held that total turnover is sum total of Domestic Turnover and export Turnover and therefore, if any amount is reduced from Export Turnover than Total turnover also goes down by the same amount automatically. Respectfully following this judgment, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and accordingly, Grounds 2 & 3 are rejected. 4. Regarding remaining grounds i.e. grounds 4 to 6 in respect of exclusion of various comparables, the issue regarding exclusion of R S Software India Ltd. Is decided in favour of the revenue in view of this fact that both sides are opposed to exclusion of this comparable. In respect of the remaining 6 comparables i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no difference in facts could be pointed out by the learned DR of the revenue. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 & 5 are rejected and Ground No. 6 is partly allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. CO No.71/Bang/2017 - By the assessee : 6. Regarding the C. O. of the assessee, learned AR of the assessee submitted that the C. O. is not pressed and accordingly, the C. O. is dismissed as not pressed. 7. In the result, the C. O. of the assessee is dismissed. IT(TP)A No.506/Bang/2015 - By the assessee : 8. The assessee has raised as many as 23 grounds but it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that only Grounds No. 12, 13, 15, 18.1 and 23 are pressed and remaining grounds are not pressed. Accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in view of huge turnover and huge brand value. He submitted that as per this tribunal order, this is not a good comparable. Learned DR of the revenue supported the DRP order in the present case. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. We have already seen while deciding the appeal of the revenue that this tribunal order is applicable in the present case. Hence, respectfully following this tribunal order, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude L & T Infotech Ltd. from the final list of comparables. Ground No. 13 is allowed. 12. Ground No. 15 is about inclusion of R S Software (India) Limited. As per Ground No. 6 of the appeal of the revenue also, it is the request of the revenue that this comparable should not be excluded. Since both si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the rival submissions. As per section 234D, where any refund is granted to the assessee under section 143 (1) and no refund is due on regular assessment or refund so granted u/s 143 91) exceeds the refund as per regular assessment, the assessee is liable for interest u/s 234D. In our considered opinion, for applicability of section 234D, issue of refund voucher is not a prerequirement and adjustment of refund against old demand is also granting of refund and section 234D is applicable if such refund is more than the refund allowable on regular assessment. In this view of the matter, Ground No. 23 is rejected. 25. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 26. In the combined result, the appeal of the revenue is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to the TPO to exclude M/s Infosys Ltd, M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd and M/s KALS Information Systems Ltd as a comparable without considering the facts discussed in the case of the taxpayer by the TPO in respect of the comparable company in the TP Order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel was not justified in excluding INFOSYS Ltd, M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd and M/s KALS Information Systems Ltd as a comparable on the basis of decision in a different case when in TP rejection or acceptance of a comparable in a case on the basis of its appropriateness / inappropriateness in some other is not possible. Document 2 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'bl....