TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)-5, Bengaluru, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. The issue that arises for consideration in the appeal by the asseseee and ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the Revenue in its appeal relate to the determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of international transaction entered into between the assessee and its AE. Ground Nos.3 & 4 raised by the Revenue in its appeal reads as follows: "3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in seeking exact comparability while searching for comparable companies of the Assessee under TNMM method whereas requirement of law and international jurisprudence require seekiong similar comparable companies. 4. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) was rig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Indicator (PLI) OP/TC OP/TC Database used PROWESS & CAPITALINE PLUS PROWESS & CAPITALINE PLUS Comparables selected 21 14 5. Comparable companies ultimately selected by TPO and their arithmetic mean: Sl. No. Comparable Margin (Unadjusted) Margin (adjusted) 1. Infosys Technologies Limited 45.01% 43.88% 2. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited 19.33% 19.13% 3. LGS Limited 11.95% 7.42% 4. Mindtree Limited (Seg) 14.83% 14.45% 5. Persistent Systems Private Limited 3 0.35% 29.21% 6. RS (Software) India Limited 10.29% 9.96% 7. Sasken Communication Technologies Limited 17.36% 17.17% 8. Thinksoft Global Services Limited 17.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ITAT order for AY 2009-10 in the assessee's own case. The CIT(A) directed the AO/TPO to treat the foreign exchange fluctuation as operating in nature, while computing the operating margin of the Assessee as well as the comparable companies, as it has direct nexus with the business of the assessee. The CIT(A) directed AO/TPO to consider corrected receivable/payable figures for assessee and comparable companies and also directed re-computation of margins for certain comparable companies which were erroneously computed by the TPO. The assessee argued for inclusion of certain companies forming part of TP documentation which was rejected by the CIT(A) on the following reasons: Sl. No. Comparable Reason for rejection by CIT(A) 1. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sasken Communication Technologies Limited In the above circumstances the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to: i. admit and adjudicate the above additional ground, ii. pass any other order that may be required in the circumstances of the case and render justice. 10. All the aforesaid companies were chosen by the assessee in its TP analysis as a comparable company. Even before the CIT(A), the assessee had not chosen to challenge the aforesaid companies being considered as a comparable company. However the Special Bench, ITAT, Chandigarh, in the case of DCIT Vs. Quarks Systems Pvt. Ltd., 42 DTR 414 (Chandigarh-SB) has held that there cannot be estoppel against law and that non-comparable companies even if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat this company has reported the entire receipt from sales and software services and product. Therefore, no segmental information was found to be available for sale of software services and product. Further, the DRP has noted that as per Note 1 of Schedule 15, this company is predominantly engaged in outsource software development service. Apart from the revenue from software services, it also earns income from licence of products, royalty on sale of products, income from maintenance contract, etc. These facts recorded by the DRP has not been disputed before us. 11. There, when this company is engaged in diversified activities and earning revenue from various activities including licencing of products, royalty on sale of products as wel....