TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed ground No.4 in original ground and ground No.2 in concise ground as follows: Ground No.4 (In original Ground) Concise Ground No.2 "The ld. TPO erred in not relying upon the segmental profit and loss account." 2.1 According to the ld.AR, the assessee raised this ground before this Tribunal as above, which are dismissed by the Tribunal in para 4 at page no.7 and held as under:- "4. Ground Nos.2, 2.1 & 2.2 are not pressed before us. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed as not pressed" 2.2 The ld.AR submitted that these grounds were argued before this Tribunal, however, Tribunal failed to give any finding on this ground. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... f) Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd. g) Nihilent Ltd. h) R Systems International Limited i) Tech Mahindra Lmited" 4.2 In the appeal, if the assessee once filed concise grounds in the place of original grounds, original ground replaces by concise grounds. 4.3 In the above comparables, we do not find Tata Elxsi and Mind Tree Ltd., and as such, there is no question of adjudicating these 2 comparables on the basis of turnover filter exceeding more than Rs. 200 corers. 4.4 Now the assessee cannot seek to adjudicate the original ground raised before us. Hence, this issue in this miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 5. Next argument of the ld.AR is that the assessee sought exclusion of Mind Tree Ltd. in ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, the relevant extract of which is as follows: The Company offers services in the areas of agile, analytics and information management, application development and maintenance, business process management, business technology consulting, cloud, digital business, independent testing, infrastructure management services, mobility, product engineering and SAP services. 10.3 He further referred an extract from page 93 of the Annual report which shows the revenue spread from various services that the company offers 10.4 As it may be observed, the ld. AR submitted that Mindtree has income from various business lines apart from software development. These functions are not performed by the assessee. Software development constitu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. DRP stated that it is evident that the company is engaged in software development services and functionally comparable to the assessee. Further, it was noted that the IP led revenue constituted meagre 1% of the consolidated revenue of the company for the F.Y. 2016-17, 1% for the F.Y. 2015-16 & 2% for F.Y. 2014-15 (He referred page 93 of the annual report). Considering these information in the annual report, Ld. DRP noted that this company is predominantly (i.e., 99%) engaged in software development activity IT(TP)A No.211/Bang/2022 M/s. Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore Page 20 of 53 and is functionally comparable to the assessee. Having considered the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. DRP noted that M/s Mindtree Ltd has acquired 3 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly different in software development: a) Infobeans Technologies Ltd. b) OFS Technologies Ltd. c) Cygnet Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 40.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that the AO/TPO have no occasion to examine these comparables. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit these 3 comparables to the file of AO/TPO for fresh consideration so as to conduct TP study on these comparables and decide accordingly." 7.2 As seen from the above, the Tribunal considered this issue and remitted these two comparables to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh consideration. The assessee wanted to reargue the case, which is not permissible u/s 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, this argument of the assessee is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usion of Kumaran Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Synerzip Softech India Pvt. Ltd. while arguing the case on earlier occasion on 21.11.2022. As such, the Tribunal has not considered these two comparables while adjudicating this additional ground. Now the ld. A.R. wanted to reargue this issue, which cannot be permitted under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, this argument of ld. A.R. is dismissed. 10. Next argument of the assessee company is that the assessee raised ground No.4.4(d) in revised ground with regard to exclusion of iSN Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd., as it satisfies the export filter. However, this Tribunal given finding in para 31 as under:- "31. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials....