Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2023 (11) TMI 806

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icer (AO) under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C r.w.s 92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue read as under: * "On facts and under circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) was justified in rejecting M/s. Accentia Technologies Limited M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd., and M/s. TCS E-Serve as comparables even though the assessee has functional profile similar to such comparable.". 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is an Information Technology enabled Services (ITeS) company providing online data processing services which are stated to be in the nature of routine BPO activities. The nature of data processing services are; (a) Flight Screening (b) Fare Audi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t matter of this appeal are as under:- 4.2.1 Accentia Technology Limited ("Accentia") Ld. AR of appellant has submitted that M/s Accentia Technology Limited ("Accentia" in addition to Medical Transcription and Billing and Coding is also involved in Software sales. Unlike appellant which is rendering routine BPO services, Accentia is engaged in rendering KPO services. It has been submitted that even otherwise M/s Accentia is not comparable with the appellant which is engaged in BPO activities. Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of BC Management Services (P) Limited (supra) for AY 2011-12 has rejected use of this company as a comparable for this very reason by holding as under: "We have considered the rival submissions and a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4.2.2e-Clerx Ld. AR of appellant has submitted that eClerx is in the business of consultancy and advisory service and provides only analytical data. It is also involved in quality monitoring and offers solutions that include data analytics, operations management, audits and reconciliation and therefore has to be classified as a high end KPO. Appellant has also stated that eClerx is a Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) company providing data analytics, data management and process improvement solutions to global enterprise clients. eClerx supports its clients through two business units financial services and sales and marketing support. in financial services unit, this company is rendering services like trade processing su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es segment. TCS E-Serve also owns huge intangible and use of 'Tata' Brand, which has definitely benefited this comparable. Similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble I'AT in other decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR of appellant Respectfully following the above cited decision, the AO/TPO is directed to exclude M/s TCS E serve Ltd from the final list of comparable companies. 4.2.4 R-System International This comparable has been rejected by the Ld. TPO for the reason that the financial year is other than that ending with 31 March and hence data is not strictly comparable. In support of this finding, Ld. TPO has relied upon the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of M/s Honeywell Automation India Ltd. report....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ced that Accentia develops its own software and rendered Medical transcription services while the assessee is providing BPO services. It was thus observed that functional profile of the assessee company was quite different from that of Accentia and therefore, the comparable selected by the AO/TPO is not justified. Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No.5351/Del/2017 order dated 16.10.2023. Accentia being KPO as held in Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 377 ITR 533 (Delhi) and quite different from the BPO profile of the assessee, we see no error in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) for rejecting this comparable. 8. Second comparable in dispute is 'Eclerx Services L....