TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Research Private Limited respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax -11 (1) (' AO') in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'), Bangalore dated 31 August 2010 under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') on the following grounds: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: 1. The order of the learned AO and direction of the Hon'ble DRP are based on incorrect interpretation of law and therefore are bad in law. 2. The learned AO has erred in assessing the total income at NIL as against returned loss of Rs. 4,81,22,829/- computed by the Appellant. . 3. The learned A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atabases for obtaining publicly available financial information). The Hon'ble DRP, in turn, has erred in upholding the action of the learned AO / TPO without specifically addressing this contention. 8. The learned AO / TPO erred in rejecting certain comparable companies on' account of persistent operating losses on one hand and accepting certain super profit making companies on the other hand. 9. The learned AO / TPO erred in rejecting certain companies having different accounting year (i.e. companies having accounting year other than March 31 or companies whose financial statements were for a period other than 12 months). 10. The learned AO / TPO erred in rejecting certain companies for not having foreign....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide on the appeal in accordance with the law." 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has filed the following additional grounds:- " ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL 16. Without prejudice to the ground no. 7, the learned TPO/AO has erred in law/facts by selecting the following companies as comparables to Appellant even though these are functionally different. * Alpha Geo India Limited * Vimta Labs Limited * Celestial Labs Limited 17. Without prejudice to ground No. 7, the learned TPO/AO has erred in law/facts by not objectively selecting the following companies as comparables t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve additional ground is being filed by way of abundant caution. The additional ground raise issue which is fundamental to the appeal and the non-admission and non-adjudication of the same would result in an incomplete appreciation and adjudication of the matter. The Petitioner submits that the failure to raise this ground at an earlier stage 'is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the reasons stated above. No prejudice would be caused to the Respondent by reason of the above additional grounds being admitted and adjudicated and accordingly the balance of convenience is in favour of such an order being passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Petitioner states and submits that the issues raised in the additional ground above ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he TPO and the TPO has finally taken the following 3 comparables: (1) Alpha Geo India Ltd. (2) Celestial Labs Ltd. (3) Vimta Labs Ltd. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that all these 3 comparables are functionally different, therefore they cannot be considered as good comparables for determination of the arm's length price (ALP) of the international transactions. 6. With regard to Alpha Geo India Ltd., it was contended on behalf of the assessee that this comparable does not meet the basic comparability criterion of functional similarity which renders seismic services and does not provide any pharmaceutical R&D services. It also fails "atleast 25% earning from exports filter" applied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e turnover from bioinformatics services, data warehousing and mining, software development, product and services was 1022.18 lakhs in the FY 2005-06. Since this company is also functionally different from the assessee company, it can also not be compared as a good comparable. Accordingly, this company has to be excluded from the list of comparables. 9. So far as Vimta Labs Ltd. is concerned, it was further contended that this company is also functionally different, as it focusses on element that effect the total health of people i.e., food, water, drugs, clinical diagnostics and environment. However, Apotex (the assessee) is engaged in product research & development services pertaining to pharmaceutical products only. This company also o....