TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 897
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucation cess based on the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chambal Fertilizers which was followed by various Tribunals across the country in favour of the assessee. This subsequent decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court was stated to be sufficient cause by the ld. AR and by the assessee in its affidavit. In our considered opinion, this is not a sufficient cause which would explain the delay in favour of the appeal by the assessee. We hold that the assessee had merely adopted "wait and watch" approach and had waited for the favourable decision from a higher forum, on the impugned issue and allowability of deduction on account of education cess. We are not inclined to accept this argument of the assessee and the ld. AR. though the issue on merits is covered in favour of the assessee even by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd., but still we find that since assessee had not preferred the appeal in time, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed as unadmitted. ITA No.4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansaction which has been held to be valid by the ITAT Delhi in the case of M/s Sony India (P) Ltd VS DCIT (110 TTD 448) which has been further upheld by the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Syscom Corporation Ltd Vs ACIT (TS-195-ITAT-2013 (Mum). 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) set-aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset we find from the perusal of the aforesaid grounds, the Revenue has merely challenged the rejection of certain filters which were originally applied by the ld. TPO but were rejected by the ld. CIT(A) while passing its order on 15/03/2017. The revenue has not challenged either the inclusion or exclusion of any comparable which was decided by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we confine our order in the impugned appeal only to rejection of certain quantitative and qualitative filters by the ld. CIT(A). 4.1. We find that assessee has rendered support service to vario....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arguments on contemporaneous documentation, the assessee arrived at the following set of twelve comparables having a mean margin of 10.87% (excluding three comparables on account of unavailability of data). Sr. No Name of Company FY 2009-10. OP / TC (%) 1 A O K In-House B P O Services Limited 0.11 2 Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited 7.92 3 B N R Udyog Limited 23.77 4 Cameo Corporate Services Limited 7.84 5 Cosmic Global Limited 14.97 6 Delta Services (I) Pvt. Limited 5.17 7 In House Productions Limited 17.30 8 Informed Technologies India Limited 26.15 9 Infosys B P O Limited 31.20 10 Optimus Global Services Limited -12.25 11 Sparsh B P O Services Limited 2.57 12 Tirnex Group India Limited 5.70 Arithmetic Mean 10.87 4.6. Based on the financial results of the assessee, the operating profit / total cost ('OP/TC') margin came to 9.52%. Such OP/TC margin of 9.52% was compared to the average arithmetic mean of 10.87% (single year update) earned by the comparables. Accordingly, on applying the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ED (d) Cameo Corporate Services Ltd., - INCLUDED (e) Delta Services India Pvt. Ltd., - INCLUDED (f) In House Provisions Ltd., (Vans Information) - Healthcare Segment - INCLUDED (g) Optimus Global Services Ltd., - INCLUDED (h) Sparsh BPO Services Ltd., - INCLUDED (i) Timex Group India Ltd., - INCLUDED 4.11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the appeal before us only challenging the rejection of three filters by the ld. CIT(A) which was used by the ld. TPO for benchmarking the international transaction of the assessee. The comparables which were directed to be included / excluded are not subject matter of appeal before us by the Revenue. Hence, it would be relevant for us to address only the specific aspect of rejection of certain filters by the ld. CIT(A). 5. Rejection of filter which was applied by the ld. TPO wherein companies having export sales less than 75% of the total sales. We find that the assessee had contended before the ld. CIT(A) that for the purpose of comparability, it would be essential to consider the activity / functions performed by the respective comparable comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be appreciated in the event, where the percentage of export sales and domestic sales are equal or the differences between them are not huge. As stated earlier in the instant case, there is no dispute that assessee in its ITES segment had been catering predominantly in export market to its AEs. Hence, it would be just and fair to have comparable companies which are also having more than 75% of its sales derived from export market. Hence, we hold that the filter adopted by the ld. TPO in this regard would be a valid filter. We find that none of the observations considered by the ld. TPO were even addressed by the ld. CIT(A) in his order, as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR before us. Accordingly, the ground No.2A raised by the revenue is allowed. 6. Rejection of filter which was applied by the ld. TPO wherein companies having related party transactions more than 25% of sales We find that the ld. TPO had applied filter by stating that companies with related party transactions less than 25% of the Revenues who were alone to be considered for the purpose of benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee and had observed as under:- "In the transfer pric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the controlled entities (that is related parties) and it becomes controlled transactions and that such negotiated advantageous pricing mechanism would certainly have a major bearing on the PLI of the said comparable company that is why the spirit of provisions of Chapter X of the Act mandate that a controlled transaction should be always comparable with uncontrolled transaction for the purpose of determination of arm's length price. Hence, it would be just and fair to apply a filter by rejecting comparable companies having related party transactions more than 25% of the operating revenues. Hence, we hold that this filter applied by the ld. TPO for the purpose of determination of arm's length price is to be considered as a valid filter. We find that none of the observations considered by the ld. TPO were even addressed by the ld. CIT(A) in his order, as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR before us. Accordingly, the ground No.2B raised by the revenue is allowed. 7. Rejection of filter which was applied by the ld. TPO wherein companies having consistent losses We find that the ld. TPO had excluded all the companies with persistent losses / diminishing revenues for the la....