TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under: 2.1 The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Customer Focus Services LLC USA and provides back office operations for its Associated Enterprises ('AE') i.e., in the nature of IT Enabled Services ('ITES'). For Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee filed its return on 31.03.2012 declaring income of Rs. 1,79,52,549/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny for this Assessment Year and the Assessing Officer ('AO') made a reference u/s 92CA of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arms length price (ALP) of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AE, as mentioned in the 92CE Report. After examining the assessee's TP documentation, the TPO, in his order under section 92CA of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are Development" irrespective of whether onsite or offshore. iii) The Hon'ble DRP erred in excluding M/s Acropetal Technologies on the ground that they have significant onsite revenue without appreciating the fact that onsite development of software entails more cost and thereby results in lower profit margins. iv) The Hon'ble DRP erred in seeking exact comparability while searching for comparable companies of the assessee under TNMM method whereas requirement of law and international jurisprudence require seeking similar comparable companies. 2. M/s. Jeevan Scientific Technology Limited. a) The Hon'ble DRP erred in facts and law in excluding the company as a comparable, on the ground of failing the service income filter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Acropetal on grounds on functional comparability; for the reason that 'Acropetal' performs engineering design services, and therefore it is not comparable with the assessee in the case on hand who performs only ITES/BPO functions. It was prayed that in the light of the above, Revenue's ground No.1 (i to iv) be dismissed. 4.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record regarding the comparability of 'Acropetal' to the assessee in the case on hand. The DRP in its order, while deciding the comparability of 'Acropetal' to the assessee in the case on hand, at pages 5 and 6 thereof, has held as under: "Acropetal Technologies Ltd Having considered the submissions, on perusal of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct the assessing officer to exclude the company from the comparables." 4.3.2 On a careful appraisal of material on record and the DRP's order (supra), we find that the DRP has excluded 'Acropetal' from the list of comparables on the grounds of it being functionally not comparable to the assessee in the case on hand and not on the ground of application of 'on-site' filter as alleged by Revenue in the grounds raised (supra). We also find that Revenue in this appeal has neither challenged DRP's action in excluding 'Acropetal' from the list of comparables on grounds of not being functionally comparable to the assessee nor has Revenue been able place on record any factual evidence to controvert DRP's finding that 'Acropetal' is not functionally....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the company over many years and (iii) also because there is no foreign earning in respect of the ERP segment, and there would be less than 32.28% revenue ratio even if the BPO segment is considered. It is submitted that this company 'Jeevan' has also been excluded by DRP on account of (i) huge fluctuation in the profit margins of the company in the last few years and (ii) for failure on the 75% revenue earning filter applied by the TPO which have not been challenged by Revenue and therefore this company, 'Jeevan' has to remain excluded from the list of comparables to the assessee. 5.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the DRP has dealt with the comparability of t....