TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 08.04.2019 on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in removing certain comparable from the list of comparable's on the basis of functional dissimilarity which satisfied all filters applied by the Transfer Pricing and without doing any FAR analysis of the tax payer with those other cases? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal assessee is entitled for claim of depreciation on goodwill by relying on the decision which is not applicable to facts of the case even with appreciating that the assessee had not shown the good will as fixed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 14.11.2011, excluded Infosys Ltd. on account of its enormous size and bulk and partly allowed the appeal. The assessee as well as the revenue thereafter filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal, by an order dated 03.03.2017, inter alia directed transfer pricing officer to exclude certain companies as comparable on the basis of functional dissimilarity. The Tribunal also held that assessee is entitled to depreciation on goodwill. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in directing transfer pricing officer to e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. is required to remain excluded. It is also pointed out that the decision of the tribunal in McAfee supra has been affirmed by this court vide judgment dated 24.07.2018 passed in I.T.A.No.470/2015. It is also urged that the finding recorded by the tribunal that the Infosys Ltd. is functionally not comparable to assessee is a finding of fact and the revenue has neither the challenged the same as perverse nor has brought on record any material to demonstrate the perversity in the aforesaid concurrent findings of fact and therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions in 'CIT VS. AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES (P.) LTD', (20....