AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onfirming the adjustment of Rs. 4,19,13,043/- in trading segment of assessee. 3. That the learned TPO as well as the DRP and consequently the AO have grossly erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in erroneously: 2.1 Rejecting the scientifically run search process of the assessee without any reasons. 2.2 Rejecting the assessee's comparables for the trading segment of the assessee without giving any cogent reasons. 2.3 Carrying out a fresh search process, and not giving the assessee such search process used against the assessee, which is against the principle of natural justice. 2.4 Cherry picking the comparables. 4. The learned TPO as well as the DRP and consequently the AO have grossly erred in law and on facts in choosing new comparable companies which were different from the assessee both in the type of nature of activities and the functions performed, which is against the rules of comparability under Rule 10B(2) of the IT Rules. 5. The learned TPO/AO has earned in law in not deciding upon exclusion or inclusion of McNally Sayaji for not including in final list of comparable in spite of specif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in erroneously rejecting the comparable selected through scientifically run search process, without any reasons. 16. That the learned TPO has erred in law not in giving the assessee the details of fresh search process so that assessee may submit its objection, which is against the principle of natural justice. 17. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the new comparable companies chosen by the TPO which were different from the assessee both in the nature of activities and the functions performed, which is against the tenet of comparability under Rule 10B(2) of the IT Rules. 18. That the Hon'ble DRP has erred on the facts of the assessee's case in the alleging that the assessee seeks exclusion of only comparable with higher margins. 19 That the Hon'ble DRP has erred on facts in not appreciating that the assessee is low end not-risk bearing in its support service segment and comparable should be selected accordingly. 20. That the learned TPO has erred in law treating the prior period expenses as operating in nature since they are extra ordinary and one t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Others 33. That the learned AO has erred in law in making addition of transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 4,74,72,605/- in Book profit as per MAT provisions which is not warranted as section 115 JB is complete code in itself. 34. That the learned AO has erred in law in computing demand of Rs. 91,37,310/- on wrongly computed book profits which is not as per provisions of section 115 JB. 35. That the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) on only illegal and untenable grounds since there was no concealment of any income non-submission of inaccurate particulars of income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 36. That the interest charged under section 234B and 234C of the Act is on wholly, illegal and untenable grounds and is prayed not to be held. 37. That each ground is independent of and without prejudice to the other grounds raised herein. 38. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds or raise an additional ground if it become necessary to do so in the interest of justice. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1, 2, 11 and 12 are general in nature and therefore, we are not required to adjudicate upon specifically, accordingly same are dismissed as infructuous. 4. The ground Nos. 3 to 10 of the appeal relate to transfer pricing adjustment to trading segment i.e. sale of traded goods. 4.1 The assessee in its transfer pricing study has submitted function, assets and risk (FAR) analysis of the transaction of the assessee for segment of traded goods as under: "Purchase of traded goods" Background: BEIPL trades in spare parts used in engines used in power generation in the energy industry. It has imported such goods to be sold to third parties from its AE during the year. In this regard, functions undertaken by the BEIPL have been articulated below: (a) Functions: Nature of Function BEIPL AE Procurement Yes BEIPL is responsible for purchasing the traded goods from its AE based on the confirmed requisition to be raised on it by the customers in India. On receipt of the purchase order, the associated enterprises dispatch the goods. No The AE is responsible to dispatch goods to BEIPL on receipt of the purchase the order from it. The AE does not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Limited The AEs are the parties selling the traded goods in the transaction. Therefore, the AEs bear the risk of collection of amount due from BEIPL. Foreign Currency Risk: The risk arises from any adverse fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, which could have a negative impact on the profitability of the company. Yes BEIPL deals with its AEs in foreign currency. So, BEIPL is exposed to foreign exchange risk on account of fluctuations in foreign currency in relation to INR. Therefore, BEIPL bears this risk. No AE is not exposed to any risk on account of foreign exchange fluctuation since the invoices raised by them are in their local currency; they do not have risk on this account. Inventory Risk: This covers the risk of theft, breakage arising out of stocking and warehousing of the products, and obsolescence arising out of technological upgradation and enhancement etc. Yes but limited After the goods are imported by BEIPL, any risk such as theft, obsolescence, market risk arising out of stocking and warehousing the imported products is borne by BEIPL. In most cases BEIPL imports the goods only after a confirmed order is placed by the customer and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the profit level indicator of 15.50% of the comparable companies chosen by the assessee, the international transaction is at arm's length. 4.3 The learned TPO rejected the RPM as most appropriate method due to following reasons: (a) The comparables should be dealing in resale of properties/services which are similar in nature and value as far as possible. If the tested party deals in branded goods, the comparable entities should also be dealing in branded goods. If the value of the goods sold by the tested party and the comparables differs significantly, the comparability may suffer. (b) Where a comparable is enjoying a monopoly or exclusive rights to sell in the market or faces no competition in its market, the comparability suffers as the conditions/circumstances of sale should also be comparable. The resale price margin cannot be compared in those cases also where one of the parties is making resale using its intangible assets such as marketing network while the other party has no such intangible. (c) The functions performed which affect the resale price margin should also be similar or it should be possible to make adjustment for such differences ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atliboi Ltd. Does not pass filter applied by the TPO. Hence rejected. 2. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Does not pass filter applied by the TPO. Hence rejected. 3. Greaves Cotton Does not pass filter applied by the TPO. Hence, rejected. 4.5 The learned TPO, re-computed the profit level indicator of the assessee at 1.33% by treating 'goodwill' amortized as an operating expense, which was treated by the assessee as nonoperating while computing the profit level indicator. The learned TPO rejected the comparables selected by the assessee and made afresh search and proposed following comparables: S.No. Comparable Companies OP/OI (%) 1. Jullundur Motor Agency (Delhi) Ltd. 3.68 2. Mahindra Automobile Distributor Pvt. Ltd. 26.99 3. PAE Ltd. -2.02 4. Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd. -3.56 Average 6.27 4.6 The difference in the profit level indicator of the assessee as computed by the assessee and the TPO is summarised as under: Particulars Goodwill as Non-operating Goodwill as Operating Difference Remarks Sale of products 1,19,13,86,406 1,19,13,86,406 Other Oper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Whereas normal depreciation for assets employed may be an operation expense but amortization of goodwill cannot be treated as operating cost. - The Ld. TPO also in its order on Pg. 30 has given list of incomes and expenses which are to be treated as nonoperating in nature and that list includes amortization of goodwill. Thus, your honours would observe from the above mentioned fact that the Ld. TPO has himself accepted in his comments that amortization of goodwill is a non-operating expenses as per the discussions, therefore, finally treating the same as operating is contrary and self-contradictory stand of the Ld. TPO, which in any case is not in accordance with the law and prayed not to be upheld. Necessary adjustment made by the assessee of treating the amortization of goodwill as an exceptional and non-operating item is prayed to be upheld. - Further the operating assets that generate revenue and are intrinsic to the day to day working/functioning of a company and are used for the carrying out of business are relevant for establishing comparability under Rule 10B(2), i.e., FAR analysis rule. Once, as per the FAR analysis the assets used that establish comparab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st (e.g. wars, riots, and earthquakes), unless such losses are a recurrent business hazard; * Losses from completely writing off intangibles, such as goodwill or trademarks; and * Amounts from writing off unamortized bond discounts, bond premiums, or bond issue expenses when the related debt is retired or refunded before maturity. - Hon'ble DRP has in para 4.6 Pg. 11 relied on its own judgment in assessee's case in AY 2012-13 and has upheld the treatment of TPO of treating the goodwill write off as operating by stating that when depreciation is claimed on an asset year after year, this expenditure ceases to be extraordinary in nature. - In this regard, it is submitted the ld. DRP failed to appreciate that Goodwill which is a result of an Acquisition of Business in the books of the assessee is not routine asset created by a fiction of law. It is not an asset on which depreciation is charged year after year, in fact, it is amortization of its value over a fixed amortization period. The Ld. DRP has failed to appreciate the difference between depreciation and amortization, it is respectfully submitted. - It is to be appreciated that the trea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19% Mahindra Automobile Distributor 0 61.76 0.00% PAE Ltd. 0.69 138.65 0.50% Stanes Motor South India 0.11 13.93 0.79% Average (Comparables) 0.37% - Your honour would appreciate the in case of trading companies, the asset base is very low. Since functionally the TPO and DRP are of the view that the comparables are correct then a difference in their asset base under Rule 10B(2) should be adjusted as per Rule 10B(3), whereby an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction, if reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences. - Hon'ble DRP did not appreciate (Page 11 of DRP's Order - para 4) that the calculation furnished before it demonstrates that how the disproportionate assets cause disproportionate depreciation which impacts the PLI requiring reasonable accurate adjustment from both assessee as well as comparables for the assets used by them. Your Honour would appreciate that the comparability analysis is required to pass the test of FAR analysis i.e. functions performed, assets employed and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....page 4 para 4.4 of TPO's order) and thus should have been retained in the final set of comparables for benchmarking the transaction of sale of traded goods. - The Hon'ble DRP (Page 9 in para 4.5.2 of its order) directed the TPO to comment on this comparable in the final order with reasons of rejection or selection. - However, TPO did not follow the DRP directions in this regard and gave no reasoning in its final order and remain silent on the directions of the DRP which are binding on TPO/AO - Therefore, the final order of the TPO not following all the directions of the DRP should be annulled. b. Fresh Search Process conducted by the Ld. TPO - The Ld. TPO proceeded to conduct a new the search process for benchmarking the sale of traded goods. - The TPO had also applied a fresh search process and obtained 4 comparables to benchmark the transaction of sale of traded goods namely Jullundur Motor, Mahindra Automobile Distributor, PAE Ltd. and Stanes Motors. - The TPO did not provide the search process used for obtaining the above said comparables so as to enable the assessee to submit detailed objections. The assessee speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....directed the TPO to re-examine the calculation of 29% of the RPT as per the objection of the assessee on this comparable as per the details given in PB 253-255 submitted before the DRP, to cross verify the claim and working of the assessee in the light of filters used by TPO and approved by DRP. - However, TPO did not comment upon the working of the assessee on PB 253-255 as directed by the DRP, and disposed the directions just by stating that the RPT is 21%. The TPO neither gave any reason for not considering assessee's calculation nor gave its own basis of deriving 21% RPT. - The assessee further filed an application under section 154 requesting for the correction of mistake apparent from record. In response to which, the TPO rejected the same by stating that this is not an issue subject to rectification. - It is thus prayed that, Mahindra Automotive be excluded from the final list of comparable since its is neither functionally similar to the assessee's trading function nor does is pass the RPT Filter of 25% since it has RPT of 29%. - If Mahindra Automobile is excluded from final list of comparable, the revised PLI of the TPO's compar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... binding directions of DRP u/s 144C(13). ii) Adjustments of write-off of goodwill be granted to the assessee, or alternatively the depreciation change be excluded from both assessee as well as comparables. iii) Mahindra Automotive Distributor Pvt. Ltd. which has super normal profit, obtained through incorrect filter and has RPT of 29% should be excluded from the list of comparable as per he filter applied by the TPO himself of 25% RPT transaction. iv) McNally Sayaji be included in final list of comparable as per the directed of the DRP v) The search process carried out by the TPO may be hold as invalid and the results declared by assessee in its TP analysis may be upheld. 5.3 The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the lower authorities and on the issue of exclusion of the comparable M/s Mahindra Auto Mobile distributor submitted that the comparable qualified related party transaction (RPT) filter being 21% of the total transactions, and thus following the direction of learned DRP, the comparable has been retained. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant metal on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods, because same are rendered merely academic. 6.4 The ground No. 4 of the appeal is accordingly allowed and other grounds related to trading segment are not adjudicated being rendered academic. 8. The ground No. 13 to 22 are related to adjustment to provision for support service segment (marketing support services and project management support services). 9. The ground No. 13 and 22 being general in nature, we are not required to adjudicate specifically. 10. The ground No. 14 is in respect of change in most appropriate method from Cost Plus Method (CPM) to Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) by the TPO for determination of ALP of the support service segment. 10.1 The assessee in its transfer pricing study applied CPM as most appropriate method to benchmark the international transaction of provision of support services i.e PMS and MSS. the assessee determined its gross profit at 26.18% and the gross profit margin of the comparables was determined at 7.48% on three years average. According to the assessee , the learned TPO applied TNMM as most appropriate method without giving any reason for disregarding the choice of the CPM as MAM adopted by the assessee for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....most appropriate method in this cse. DRP failed to appreciate that in AY 2012-13, the issue of selection of most appropriate method was in respect of transaction of Purchase of Traded Goods, and not for the Support services segment. The issues for AY 2012-13 are entirely different from those in AY 2013-14, and are not relevant in the year under consideration. Thus, the DRP findings of AY 2012-13 are not relevant for adjudicating issues under this year. The reliance of the DRP on its earlier order to form opinion on choice of method in this case is not warranted and prayed to be annulled. - Accordingly, it is prayed that the CPM be accepted as the MAM for benchmarking the transaction of Support services segment. - Without prejudice, it is accepted that the CPM is more suited to the transaction of rendering of services than the TNMM. Reliance is placed on the OECD Guidelines (Para 2.45) and Guidance Note on Transfer Pricing issued by ICAI in 2017(Para 6.20), wherein the CPM is said to be ordinarily appropriate in the following situations: (i) where semi- finished goods are transferred between associates; or (ii) where there is long term bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions in detail and disposed the same in non-speaking and ad-hoc manner. Hon'ble DRP also mentioned that filters applied by the TPO have been accepted by various ITAT decisions, but did not explain/state what those decisions are and how they are application to the facts of the assessee's case. Such a casual approach by the DRP in disposing off the assessee's objections in un-called for and prayed to be annulled." 10.5 In the ground No. 17 and 18, the assessee has objected selection of various comparables by the learned TPO. The learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that if it's grounds related to exclusion of the certain comparables selected by the learned TPO under the segment, is considered, the profit level indicator of the assessee of support service segment would be more than the average PLI of the comparables and no adjustment would be required and other grounds in relation to support service segment may not be required to adjudicate. 10.6 Accordingly, we take up arguments of the parties in relation to each comparable for adjudication. The function, asset and risk (FAR) analysis of the assessee in relation to provision of project management and marketing support serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd BEIPL is not held liable for any service failure. Service Liability Risk This risk arises out of any shortfall in the quality of services being rendered No BEIPL bears no risk of shortfall in service quality as the risk will remain with the AE only and BEIPL will remain harmless from any liability. Yes AEs bear all the risk on account of shortfall in service quality. Foreign Exchange Risk The risk arises from any adverse fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, which could have a negative impact on the profitability of the company. Yes For the bills raised in foreign currency BEIPL is exposed to the risk of foreign currency fluctuations. However there is no risk for bills raised in INR Yes For the bills raised in INR the AEs are exposed to the foreign currency fluctuation risk. Credit Risk This is the risk arising when a firm supplies its products or services to a customer in advance of its payment. No. BEIPL is rendering service to its associated enterprises which have high creditworthiness therefore it bears no or negligible risk. No. The AEs make paymet to BEIPL in relation to the services availed by them and thus, are not exposed to any cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Company. 12.1 The Learned DR, on the other hand, referred to para-5.4 of the learned DRP and submitted that function of the company is broadly similar to the support service segment of the assessee. The learned DR also referred to revenue from operations of the company and submitted that company is engaged in diverse activities including project related services, infrastructure and planning development, which are broadly similar to the assessee. 12.2 We have heard submission of the both the parties on the issue in dispute. As far as functions of the company is concerned, from Note -15 of the Annual Report( available on page 28 of Annual Report of the Company), which is having detailed of revenue from operations, we find that main revenue has been earned from micro-enterprise development and skill development and EDPs. The relevant detailed of revenue from various operations is reproduced as under: Revenue and Operations As at 31st March, 2013 Amount (Rs.) As at 31st March, 2012 Amount (Rs.) Revenue from Business Services: 1. Micro Enterprises Development 1,21,07,772 61,65,005 2. Skill Development & EDPs 5,85.32,425 34....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pment, skill development, project management consulting, industrial cluster development, environmental management consulting, energy management consulting, market & social research and asset reconstruction management services. This company was promoted jointly by All India Financial Institutions (IDBI, IFCI, ICICI), State Industry Development Corporations (APIDC, APSFC) and commercial banks (Andhra Bank, Indian Bank, State Bank of India, Syndicate Bank). 37. From a bare perusal of the services rendered by Apitco Ltd., it is clear that it is imparting consultancy in entirely different field and is not comparable to the functions performed by different service segments of assessee. We, therefore, direction for exclusion of this comparable from the list of comparables." 12.5 In the case of Microsoft Corporation India Private limited (supra), the company has been excluded on the ground of being a government company, relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Shell India Market P Ltd Vs ACIT [ TS-430-ITAT- 2014-Mum-TP] . The Tribunal in these decisions has held the Govt. Companies as not comparable to the private companies primarily due to different risk unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so extended its operation in solid waste management. The services provided by the company not only include routine services of facility management, mechanized housekeeping and shop floor cleaning but specialized services of land filling, solid waste management, series treatment plant, emergency medical services, factory construction, outdoor advertisement etc. Therefore, the company cannot be compared with the support service segment of the assessee. 14.1 On the contrary, the Learned DR relied on the finding of the lower authorities. 14.2 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute. On perusal of the Annual Report (page -3) of the company, it is evident that the company was engaged in facility management services, housekeeping services along with services of solid waste management including organic and inorganic waste management, sewage treatment plants for government entities. This fact has also been recorded by the learned TPO. Clearly, the services of the solid waste management and sewage treatment plant, cannot be compared with support service of raising invoices and other logistic services rendered by the assessee to its Associated Enterprise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us it might also be rejected on the same criteria as just dial Ltd. He also referred to Annual Report of the company and submitted that this a government of India undertaking as well as engaged in sale of products and failed to pass the filter of products to service ratio. 16.1 The learned DR on the other and submitted that government organization also plays a level playing field with private sector and cannot be excluded just on the ground that it is a government organization. On the filter of the product to service ratio, the learned DR submitted that learned TPO has mentioned that the company passes all the filters. 16.2 We have heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. On perusal of the Annual Report of the company, it is evident that company is a government company. Further on perusal of the profit and loss account of the company, we find that the company has shown revenue from sale of the products atRs. 49,65,37,078/-and revenue from sale of the services of Rs. 97,89,74,969/-. From these figures of sale of products and services the ratio of the services and products works out to 65% and 35% respectively. The sale of product i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 127,48,55,307/-. Further below the profit and loss account in footnotes, further breakup of the revenue has been shown as under: "(A) Space Media : 997334654 Radio Advertising : 17942280 Hoarding: 53707532 Designing: 62387426 T.V. Advertising Sales:124955162 Print Sales: 13086017Other: 5442136" 18.3 In view of the stream of the revenue shown by the company, it is evident that it is a full-fledged media advertisement company and it cannot be compared with the support service including marketing support segment of the assessee. The company being functionally dissimilar, we direct the Learned AO/TPO to exclude the company from the final set of the comparables. 19. In view of the ground No. 17 and 18 of the appeal related to exclusion of the comparables selected by the learned TPO adjudicated by us, the ground No. 21 of considering risk adjustment in support service segment is rendered merely academic and accordingly, we are not adjudicating upon the same. The ground is dismissed accordingly. 20. The ground No. 23 to 32 are in relation to adjustment to provision of technical services. 21. The ground No. 23 and 32 are general in nature therefore, we are not require....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r a business due to the uncertainty in the structure of the market, demand patterns and needs of customer's costs, pricing etc. Market risk represents standard risk borne by any enterprise in market driven transactions Yes, Limited BEIPL bears the market risk in respect of services rendered. However, since they are rendered to the AE, the risk is minimal. Yes This risk is borne by the AE, since they are responsible to the ultimate customer. Service Liability/Performance Risk: Risks associated with service failures, including not meeting the generally accepted/regulatory standards influences the price charged in a particular transaction. No BEIPL does not have any contractual liability for losses or damages for service failures and the cost of rework (if any) would be recoverable from the AEs. Accordingly, in economic substance, the assessee company does not bear any service liability risk. Yes The AEs are responsible for any failure or damages related to service performance. Manpower Risk Manpower risk associated with risk of losing its trained personnel as well as employing untrained or inefficient employees. Yes, Limited BEIPL, to some extent has the risk of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng: 25. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the company is rendering commissioning of Greenfield, expansion of cement as well as captive power plant/waste heat recovery based plants. The Ld. Counsel referred to Annual Report, wherein the company has been claimed to be primarily engaged in the business of rendering engineering consultancy services. The learned Counsel submitted that the company has been excluded by the Tribunal Delhi bench in the case of Bechtel India private limited [ TS-602-ITAT 2015(DEL)-TP] due to functionally different from the companies engaged in providing engineering services. 25.1 The learned DR on the other hand relied on the finding of the learned TPO. 25.2 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue. The Ld TPO himself has mentioned that company is engaged in providing engineering consultancy services. In the Annual Report, at note 20, footnote 32 , it is mentioned that the company is primarily engaged in the business of rendering engineering consultancy services. The function of the consultancy cannot be compared with function of the providing ancillary services of operation, repair and maintenance of plants. 25.3 Accordingly, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilar from the captive service providers. He also submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of international SOS services India private limited [TS-493-SC-2018- TP] has upheld that government of India undertaking cannot be included as a comparable. 27.1 The Learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the finding of the Learned TPO/DRP. 27.2 We have heard rival submission of the parties. We find that the learned TPO himself has mentioned the fact that the company was engaged in rendering comprehensive range of professional consultancy services in healthcare and other social sectors in India and abroad, which has been utilized by various organizations both in public and private sectors, central government departments etc. The accounts of company have been audited by the auditors appointed by the Controller and Auditor General of India (CAG). In profit and loss account, revenue has been shown mainly from consultancy fee. The function of the consultancy cannot be compared with the technical service segment of the assessee, and accordingly, we direct the Learned AO/TPO to exclude the company from the final set of the comparables on functional dissimilarity. Acropetal Technol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al SOS Services India Ltd (supra), Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.[TS-323-ITAT- 2019(DEL)-TP]. 29.1 The Learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the finding of the lower authorities. 29.2 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute. In the profit and loss account , the company has shown revenue from its operation. The learned TPO has noted that the company is engaged in providing certification and quality checking by view of various processes of physical survey and tests during procurement, fabrication, examination, installation and commissioning etc. The activity of certification and quality check is distinct from the function of the assessee of technical service segment and thus we direct the Learned AO/TPO to exclude the company from the set of the final comparables being functionally dissimilar to the technical service segment of the assessee. 30. In view of our adjudication on the objection of the comparables selected by the TPO, the other ground No. 24, 25,26, 30 and 31 of the appeal are rendered academic. Accordingly, we are not adjudicating those grounds and dismiss the same is infructuous. 31 In The ground No. 33 and 34, the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee in the income of an association of persons or body of individuals, on which no income-tax is payable in accordance with the provisions of section 86; or (fb) the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to income accruing or arising to an assessee, being a foreign company, from,- (A) the capital gains arising on transactions in securities; or (B) the interest, royalty or fees for technical services chargeable to tax at the rate or rates specified in Chapter XII, if the income-tax payable thereon in accordance with the provisions of this Act, other than the provisions of this Chapter, is at a rate less than the rate specified in sub-section (1); or (fc) the amount representing notional loss on transfer of a capital asset, being share of a special purpose vehicle, to a business trust in exchange of units allotted by the trust referred to in clause (xvii) of section 47 or the amount representing notional loss resulting from any change in carrying amount of said units or the amount of loss on transfer of units referred to in clause (xvii) of section 47; or (fd) the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to income by w....