TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught to be rectified by assessee is in respect of the view taken by this Tribunal in case of Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd at page 24 of the impugned order. Ld.AR submitted that this comparable is functionally not similar as it lacks segmental information. 3. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 4. We note that Ld.AR at the time of hearing argued for exclusion of this comparable for not having segmental information for purposes of comparing the relevant segment. We also note that Ld.AR alleged for exclusion of this comparable for not having segmental details. However at the time of dictation, we found that there was segmental information regarding revenue earned by this compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his company is engaged in development of software products, as it has inventories, intangible assets and also because it has high expenditure on R&D, and is therefore functionally not comparable to the Assessee. Ld.AR placed reliance on decision of this Tribunal in case of Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd (supra). We find that as per its Annual Report, Sasken derives revenue from software products and, what is more, even launched a new product called Vypaar SEWA during FY 2010-11. Further, as can be seen from its Annual report, R&D constitutes an important part of the operational and functional profile of Sasken. Also, as Sasken has significant intangibles and inventories, the Assessee submits that it ought to be rejected as a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Applied Materials India( P)Ltd. (supra) has remitted the issue of functional comparability of Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. that in the said case the DRP did not adjudicate the objections of the assessee. Therefore in view of the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SaxIndia ( P.)Ltd. (Supra) which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we direct the TPO/AO to exclude these two companies from the set of comparables." 9. We also find that this Tribunal in Finastra Software Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT in (2018) 93 taxmann.com 460 (para 17); Cypress Semi-conductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in IT(TP)ANo.356/Bang/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and think software global private limited which has not been adjudicated by this tribunal while deciding ground 12.2 14. Ld.Sr.DR supported the order passed by this Tribunal. 15. We have perused the records placed before us and found the submissions of assessee to be true. We accordingly recall order dated 19/03/2020 for the purposes of adjudicating the exclusion of 2 comparables alleged by assessee in ground 12.2 and for adjudicating ground 14(a). 16. Next issue alleged by Ld.AR is in respect of Ground No. 15 wherein, it is pointed out that section 55 has been mentioned wrongly as against section 50 B of the Act and that this Tribunal for computation of slump sale directed Ld. AO to grant indexation, which is not in accordanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee." 20. The next issue alleged by assessee in miscellaneous petition is in respect of Ground No.16 wherein, disallowance made by Ld.AO/TPO under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDs. 21. Ld.AR submitted that, at the outset, assessee deducted TDS on payment of Rs. 1,161,710/- made to Software Productivity Research Asia Pacific PTE Ltd., which has not been considered by this Tribunal while considering this issue. It has been submitted that assessee had furnished Form 15 CB, wherein taxes withheld at source has been certified. Ld.AR referred to page 2306-2313 of paper book, wherein relevant information has been filed. 22. We have verified relevant details filed by Ld.AR from records placed before us. 23. We note....