TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pute Resolution Panel (`DRP'), Bangalore dated 24 August 2011 under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') on the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1.the order of the learned AO, based on directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in assessing the total income at Rs. 3,43,14,900 as against returned income of Rs. 11,94,451 computed by the Appellant; [corresponding to ground 1] Grounds of appeal relating to corporate tax matters 2.on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, based on directions of DRP, the learned AO has erred in law by holding that the telecommunication expenses (i.e. leased line charges) attributable to the delivery of computer software outside India should be reduced from export turnover while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act; [corresponding to ground 2] 3.on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, based on directions of DRP, the learned AO has erred in law and in fact by holding that the foreign currency travel expenses are towards technical services rendered outside India and should be reduced from "export turnove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified by the Appellant as having economic performance contrary to the industry behaviour (e.g. companies which showed a diminishing revenue trend); and [corresponding to ground 9(b)] (c) the learned AO/TPO erred in rejecting certain comparables considered by the Appellant in the comparability analysis on the ground that the comparables were having different accounting year (other than March 31 or companies whose financial statements were for a period other than 12 months). [corresponding to ground 9(c)] (d) the learned AO/TPO erred in rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant where consolidated results had been used for analysis. The Appellant had considered the consolidated results in only those cases where the back office support services related income of the Indian operations constituted more than 75 percent of the consolidated company-wide/ segmental revenues; [corresponding to ground 9(d)] 10.the learned TPO erred in obtaining information which was not available in public domain by exercising powers u/s 133(6) of the Act and relying on the information for comparability analysis; [corresponding to ground 10] 11.the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xport turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10A allowed the assessee to reduce from total turnover also for the purpose of computing this deduction because it was held by Hon'ble High Court that total turnover is sum of total of export turnover and domestic turnover and therefore, if any amount is reduced from export turnover then the total turnover also gets reduced by the same amount automatically. Accordingly ground no. 4 is allowed. 5. Regarding ground nos. 5 to 10, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that these grounds are general in nature and no separate adjudication is called for. 6. Regarding ground no. 11 are in respect of assessee's request for exclusion of various comparables. The ld. AR of assessee drawn our attention to page no. 20 and 21 of the DRP directions where this issue was decided by the DRP. At this juncture, it was observed by the bench that the order of DRP is cryptic because no speaking order is passed by the DRP regarding various objections raised by the assessee. In reply, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that TPO has passed a speaking order and the DRP has approved the same and therefore, the issue involved may be decided on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es as comparable the Eligible Assessee could not however justify as to how these entities are functionally different from the Eligible Assessee. The respective Annual Reports of each comparable entity that the Eligible Assessee seeks to reject have been gone through. They clearly indicate that they have similar function profile as that of the Eligible Assessee. The issue of Objection regarding invocation of Section 133(6) of the Income - Tax Act has been dealt with earlier in this Order. The same holds good here as well. The Transfer Pricing Officer has also sufficiently met the arguments of the Eligible Assessee in this regard for each comparable entity. The Case Laws relied upon by the Assessee are good only for those specific cases in which they were decided. Factually the present case is different and therefore the views taken in the specific cases as per the Case Laws relied upon by the Eligible Assessee cannot be imported for application in the instant case. The issues like high growth rate and Related Party Transaction, different turnover band etc. have been dealt with in general in the preceding paragraphs. They do not support the contentions of the Eligible Assessee. No in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee for exclusion of remaining comparables is not pressed. Hence, we direct the DRP to decide this issue regarding exclusion of these 7 comparables by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Ground no. 11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Regarding ground no. 12, the ld. AR of assessee submitted that this issue should be decided in favour of the assessee in line with the Tribunal order on this issue in the Assessment Year 2006-07 in IT (TP) A No. 1227/Bang/2010 dated 11.08.2016 and he filed a copy of this Tribunal order and drawn our attention to Para no. 48 of this Tribunal order. At this juncture, it was pointed out by the bench that it has to be seen as to whether the gain is on the turnover of the present year or an earlier year. In reply, it was submitted that such details are not readily available and therefore, the matter be restored back to the file of AO for fresh decision with suitable directions. The ld. DR of revenue also submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of AO with suitable directions. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in Assessmen....