TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the TPO Order further appealed before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") against the TPO order and subsequently, the learned Assessing Officer ("learned AO") issued the final assessment order with a transfer pricing ("TP") adjustment of INR 30,281,283/- 3. The learned AO / learned TPO erred in rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of 92C of the Act contending that the information or data used in the computation of the ALP is not reliable or correct. The learned AO/ learned TPO has grossly erred therefore in : 3. a rejecting comparability analysis carried in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis by introducing various filters in determining the ALP. 3. b rejecting companies that are functionally comparable to the Appellant while performing the comparability analysis. Specifically, the following companies ought to have been included as comparable: • Nittany Outsourcing Services Private Limited • Datamatics Financial Services Limited • R Systems International Limited • Caliber Point Business Solutions Limited....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind and modify the grounds provided herein above or produce further documents, facts and evidence before or during the course of hearing of this appeal. For the above and any other grounds which may be raised at the time of hearing, it is prayed that necessary relief may be provided." 3. At the time of hearing, assessee not pressed ground nos. 1, 2, 3, 3(a), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11 & 12. The ld. AR pressed only ground related to the comparables in 3(b) with reference to R Systems International Limited. Other five comparables viz., Nittany Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd., Datamatics Financial Services Ltd., Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd., Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd. and Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd. are not pressed. 4. The first ground for consideration in this appeal is with regard to considering R Systems International Ltd. as comparable. 5. The assessee has selected in the transfer pricing documentation R Systems International Ltd. as a comparable company since it is functionally comparable and passing all the filters applied by the assessee in the TP document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arable. The same to be upheld. For this purpose she relied on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Schlumberger India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. Vs. DDIT in ITA No. 640 (PUN.) of 2014 dated 10.01.2018 wherein held in para 21 as follows. "21. Now, coming to the concern Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd. The case of assessee before us is that the said concern has different financial year than the one of assessee. The Assessing Officer had applied the current year data as contemporaneous data to be used for benchmarking the arm's length price of international transactions of assessee. The assessee had prepared its financial statements for the financial year starting from 1st April, 2009 to 31st March, 2010. The case of assessee before us is that Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd. has prepared its financial statements for period of 15 months and the same is not to be selected in the final set of comparables. 22. We find that the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of BMC Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1425/PN/2010, relating to assessment year 2006-07, order dated 16.03.2016 had rejected the concern having 15 months financials. 23. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cess Outsourcing. Furthermore, Accentia is the first company to offer Software as Service model in the Healthcare Receivables Management area. However, the company has not provided any segmental data. Hence, the Company cannot be considered comparable to the assessee. • Accentia possesses brand value/ IPRs as reflected in the Financial Statements, which will tend to influence the pricing policy and thereby directly impacting the margins earned. • Accentia has acquired the IQ Group of companies of United Kingdom consisting of three companies, Tactiq Ltd., Centric Ltd. and Neologiq Ltd and also amalgamated Ascent Infoserve. Owing to these extra ordinary events, Accentia should not be considered comparable to the assessee. • Further, the IQ Group of companies are engaged in Full Product Development Lifecycle involving Electronic Design and development, Software Design and Development and separate validation service, and User Interface Design and Implementation and Product Development Consultancy and Troubleshooting involving Systematic Technology Consultation software product design and development services. • The assessee also provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nique technology and technical knowhow from the business partners. Even otherwise, every company is required to use the software and technology for providing ITEs services and therefore, above company is to be considered as comparable to the assessee's case. The ld. DR relied on the directions of DRP. 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. As discussed in earlier year this comparable Fortune Infotech Ltd. was rejected as a comparable in the case of Outsource Partners International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) and it was held that it cannot be a comparable. Accordingly, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the same. 13. The next ground is with regard to exclusion of Jeevan Scientific Technology Limited in ground no. 3(c). This ground does not require any adjudication in view of our findings with regard to issue raised in additional ground. 14. The assessee has raised additional ground and submitted the reason for raising an additional ground as follows. "Ground No. 4A: Jeevan Scientific Technology Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Jeevan Scientific") should be rejected as it fails service income filter of 75% as applied by the Ld. TPO. ....