2019 (8) TMI 1832

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing questions of law, for our consideration: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the comparable i.e. M/s. Vishal Information Technologies Limited, should be excluded for the purpose of determine the Arm's length price in the case of the assessee in terms of section 92C(1) of the IT Act, 1961, r.w. Rule 10B(2) of the IT Rules? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the CG- vak Software Limited as comparable for the purpose determining the Arm's length pricing in the case of assessee?" 3 Re. Question (a):( i) The Respondent is in the business of prov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M/s. Vishal as a comparable to determine the ALP of its services to its AEs is a finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse. Therefore, the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4 Re. Question (b):( i) The Respondent had in its Transfer Pricing Study included CG Vak Software and Exports Ltd,, (M/s. CG Vak) as a comparable. The TPO excluded M/s. CG Vak from the list of comparables to determine the ALP on the ground that it was a consistently loss making company; (ii) The DRP while deciding the Respondent's application held that M/s. CG Vak could not be excluded from the list of comparable as it did makes profit in the relevant Assessment Year under conside....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Income Tax Rules, 1961. This unnecessarily takes up the scarce time of the Court. The Revenue and the Assessee wold do well to bear in mind observations of the Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v/s. WSP Consultants India (P) Ltd., [2018] 253 Taxman 58 [2017] 87 taxmann.com 266 (Delhi) wherein it has been observed: " 10 Any inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal or any other lower authority took into account irrelevant consideration or excluded relevant factors in the ALP determination that impact significantly." We hope the above observations would be kept in mind both by the Revenue and the Assessee who seek to prefer appe....