2024 (11) TMI 503

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) impugning an order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the learned Tribunal) in ITA No. 335/Del./2017 in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The respondent (assessee) had filed the said appeal before the learned Tribunal, assailing the assessment order dated 28.11.2016 framed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144C (3) of the Act. The assessee was, essentially, aggrieved by the addition of Rs. 17,25,99,668/- made to its declared income on account of re-computation of the arm's length price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions in relation to the software development segments. 3. The assessee had furnished its....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der and made additions based on the findings of the TPO. 6. The assessee's appeal against inclusion of the four entities was accepted by the learned Tribunal. The Revenue is seeking to assail the said decision. 7. Insofar as exclusion of the Infosys Limited (hereafter Infosys) is concerned, the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by several decisions of this Court including the assessee's case in respect of earlier AYs. In addition, the learned Tribunal had also noted that the exclusion of Infosys as a comparable was also accepted in other cases including in the case of CIT v. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd.: (2013) 262 CTR (Del) 291. 8. Infosys has been found to be functionally dissimilar to the software developmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore, cannot be included as a comparable entity for benchmarking the ALP of the international transactions in question. It is also pointed out that the exclusion of Zylog in similar circumstances was also not interfered by this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. (supra). 10. The third entity which was excluded by the learned Tribunal as a comparable is Larsen & Toubro Private Limited (hereafter Larsen & Toubro). The learned Tribunal had concluded that the said entity was functionally dissimilar as it was engaged in diversified business. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. (supra), this court did not interfere with the decision of the learned Tribunal to ....