TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") is bad in law and void ab- initio. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO")/ Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred on facts and circumstances of the case in determining the arm's length adjustment to the Appellant's alleged international transaction with Associated Enterprises ("AES"), t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act that the Appellant does not bear significant business and operational risks while rendering services to its overseas affiliates. 5. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in disregarding the multiple year data selected by the Appellant in the TP Documentation and in selecting the current year (i.e. financial year 2012-13) data for comparability despite the fact that at the time of comparison done by the Appellant, the complete data for financial year 2012-13 was not available within the public domain. 6. That the Ld. AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in facts and in law in charging interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He accordingly made section 92CA reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') to determine the arm's length price ('ALP') thereof. 6. It was next the learned TPO's turn to deal with the assessee's aforesaid international transactions. He, inter alia, noticed it's OP/OC @ 15.01% declared thereupon. As we are dealing with the limited issue of the alleged wrongful inclusion and exclusion (supra) of the above stated five comparable entities, it is deemed appropriate not to deal it further with the relevant factual matrix at length for the sake of brevity. 7. Learned counsel first of all takes us to M/s Eclerx Services Ltd.'s alleged wrongful inclusion in the array of comparables. He invites our attention to the Tribunal's order dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ple back support services in question. And that the learned DRP's direction in A.Y. 2011-12 had directed exclusion of M/s TCS E-serve Ltd. as not functionally similar entity. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the third entity herein i.e. Infosys BPO Ltd. has also failed 'FAR' test in assessee's case itself in A.Y. 2012-13 (pages 15- 17), inter alia, on the ground that it was involved in 'niche' segments of insurance, banking, financial services, manufacturing and telecom etc. along with eponymous brand name as against the IT-enabled segment herein (supra). And also that there arose an extraordinary event of acquisition of Australian based entity herein namely M/s Portland Group Pty Ltd. during F.Y. 2011-12 as well. It is further stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evel playing field to certain extent than altogether exclusion of the comparable entities. He further placed strong reliance on (2017) 87 taxmann.com 266 (Delhi) PCIT v. WSP Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. that any inclusion or inclusion of comparable per se neither forms a substantial question of law nor a binding precedent, as the case may be as each assessment year carries its own set of facts. Mr. Singh further placed strong reliance on BMW India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 190 TTJ 717 (Delhi) to buttress the point that such a segment of receipt/provision of IT-enabled services involves its own set of facts which is to be independently examined in each and every assessment year. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod of two years prior to the relevant financial year as per Rule 10B(4) 1st proviso as well and, therefore, these two entities do not deserve to be included in the array of comparables. The Revenue could further not dispute that these latter two entities i.e. Infosys BPO Ltd.; and Tech. Mahindra Ltd. do not satisfy the corresponding relevant related party transaction filter of less than 25% adopted by the TPO himself as well. 15. Learned CIT(DR) at this stage sought to buttress the point that the assessee's vehement contentions seeking to exclude the foregoing comparable entity by applying turnover filter do not deserve to be accepted. We find in this factual backdrop that hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. M/s Pentair Water India Pvt. L....