TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same. 1.2 The learned Transfer Pricing Office erred by rejecting Sasken Communications Technologies Limited as comparable company on unjustifiable grounds ad Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in confirming the same. 2. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer has erred in accepting the following companies which as an entirely different functional and risk profile: 2.1 The learned Transfer Pricing Officer erred on facts and law by comparing the Assessee with Tata Elxsi Limited which has an entirely different functional and risk profile and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in confirming the same. 2.2 The learned Transfer Pricing Officer erred on facts and law by comparing the Assessee E-infochips Limited which has an entirely different functional and risk profile and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in confirming the same. 2.3 The learned Transfer Pricing Officer erred on facts and law by comparing the Assessee with Larsen &Toubro infotech Ltd. which has an entirely different functional and risk profile and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in confirming the same. 2.4 The learned Transfer Pric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nel has erred in confirming the same. 5. The learned TPO has grossly erred by comparing the Appellant with comparable companies having unreasonably high average margin of 34.69% whereas the lawmakers have prescribed a reasonable margin of 20% under the Safe harbor rules for the software development industry." 2. The assessee is engaged in the Software Development Services and filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 25.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 05,70,83,190/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and since the assessee has entered into international transactions during the previous year relevant to the year under consideration. Therefore, the case was referred to the TPO for determination of the Arm's Length price (ALP). The profile of the assessee as taken from the transfer pricing study document and recorded by the TPO in para 3 is as under:- "3. WaveCrest India is a wholly owned subsidiary of WaveCrest Group Ltd. Gibraltor ("WaveCrest Group Ltd. along with its subsidiaries is collectively referred to as "WaveCrest Group"). WaveCrest India provides backend software development and support services to tis assoc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven comparables selected by the assessee and carried out a fresh search to select the comparables for determination of arm's length price of international transaction entered into by the assessee. The TPO proposed to select 13 comparables as under:- S. No. Company Name OR OC Operating Profit OP/O C (%) 1. SOS INDIA BFSI LTD 164,09,33,805 164,09,33,805 36,51,44,689 22.25 2. TATA ELXSI LTD (seg) 558,25,94,000 558,25,94,000 124,4,28,000 22.29 3. MINDTREE LTD 2501,90,00,000 2501,90,00,000 541,50,00,000 21.64 4. R S SOFTWARE (INDIA) LTD 283,71,11,000 283,71,11,000 68,17,09,000 23.83 5. TECH MAHINDRA LTD (seg) 13739,35,00,000 13739,35,00,000 3274,55,00,000 81.00 6. e-INFOCHIPS LTD 113,59,89,199 113,59,89,199 92,01,23,238 24.04 7. LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD 3666,51,02,339 3666,51,02,339 881,52,69,543 27 8. CIGNITI TECHNOLOGIES LTD 43,58,33,603 43,58,38,603 12,04,59,559 64 9. INFOSYS LTD 32741,00,00,000 32741,00,00,000 11904,00,00,000 36.36 10. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD 871,00,90,000 43,58,38,603....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act as under:- Arm's Length Margin on cost 34.31% Operating Revenue 37,37,16,550 AE segment Revenue 32,93,44,273 AE segment Revenue as % of Operating Revenue 88.13% Operating Cost 32,19,71,595 Proportionate operating cost ( Total OC x 88.12/100) 28,37,43,123 Arm's Length Price (ALP) @ 134.31% OF Operating Cost 38,10,95,388 Price Received 32,93,44,273 Shortfall being Adjustment 5,17,51,115 The Assessing Officer then, passed a draft assessment order dated 29.12.2017 making an addition on account of TP adjustment of Rs. 5,17,51,115/-. The assessee filed the objections against the draft assessment before the DRP on 24th January, 2018 which were disposed of by this DRP vide directions dated 11.09.2018. Thereafter the assessee filed an application dated 24.09.2018 for rectification of mistakes which was disposed by the DRP vide directions dated 26.10.2018. There are two set of directions by the DRP; first on the original objections raised by the assessee and thereafter on the rectification application filed by the assessee. Before the DRP, the assessee prayed inclusion of a set of comparables which were excluded by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ogies Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer in IT(TP)A No. 3374/Bang/2018 dated 24.11.2020. Sasken Communication Technology Ltd., The learned AR has submitted that the DRP has rejected the said company on the ground that this company fails export filter and is functionally not comparable. The AR has pointed out that this company has income from export services at 74.35% of total Revenue which is just 0.65% sort of 75% export Revenue filter applied by the TPO / DRP. When this company is otherwise functionally comparable then merely because it has a 0.65% sort of 75% of export Revenue filter cannot be excluded from the set of comaprables. He has relied upon the decision of Bangalore Benches dated 24.11.2020 in the case of M/s ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer in IT(TP)A No. 3374/Bang/2018 dated 24.11.2020. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the DRP has considered the relevant facts regarding the Revenue from the different segments and noted that this company has income from sale of Software License to the tune of Rs. 27,28,760/- and commission received of Rs. 05,62,522/-. Further this company is in a different bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ajority of the revenue is from of software related services. The TPO did not apply the on-site development filter and foreign branch expenses are not the same as on-site development of software. There is no difference in the business model adopted by the company and the assessee. The company was included as comparable in the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of EMC Software and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT 115 taxmann.com 293 (Bang - Tribunal) at para 7(i) page 595 of Paper Book as under : "7 (i) Akshay Software Ltd. which has a margin of 8.13%. The income from commission on sale of software license constitute meager 0.5% of total revenue and TPO has not applied transfer development filter. The said company was rejected by the TPO for the reason that the company is engaged in providing provisional services, procurement installation, and employment support of ERP products. The DRP has rejected the comparable without applying the filter and there is no difference in the business model adopted by the company and the assessee. We on perusal of the Annual Report at Page 1373 of Paper Book, found IT(TP)A No. 3374/Bang/2018 that major revenues are from operations as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nication Technologies Ltd. - The Company is functionally comparable as it has engaged in rendering SWD services and software product development and has income from software products, which constitutes a meager 0.88% of total revenue. Such income would not have any impact on the profitability of the SWD services segment. There is no difference in the business model adopted by the company and the assessee. The company was included as comparable in the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of EMC Software and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra) at para 7(ii) page 595 of Paper Book as under:- "7 (ii) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. : The company has a margin of 10.25% and was rejected by the TPO on the functional dissimilarity and was confirmed by the DRP observing that the company fails export turnover filter. The company earns revenue from licensing and software development and royalty and the company offers software products. The learned Authorised Representative submissions are that the company is functionally similar to the assessee's profile and services rendered are predominantly software development services and income from software products constitute ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Limited The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that this company provides consulting and product design and engineering services to the consumer electronics communication and transportation entry and system integration and support services for enterprise customer. These areas of operations are completely different when compared to the assessee business profile which is a pure Software Development Services provider. He has further contended that the activities of Tata Elxsi Limited are in the nature of KPO Services and hence cannot be considered to be comparable of the assessee. He has relied upon the decision of Delhi Benches of the Tribunal dated 1st May, 2020, in the case of M/s Global Logic India Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 4740/Del/2018 and submitted that the Tribunal has rejected this company as comparable to a Software Development Company on the ground of functional dissimilarity. He has also relied upon the decision of Hyderabad Benches of the Tribunal dated 6.8.2019 in the case of M/s Infor (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 161 & 2307/Hyd/2018. 8.2 On the other hand, learned DR has submitted that as per annual report of this company, it provides Soft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds include sales of computers, networking and storage systems. ii. Rendering of services comprises: a) Product Design 66,427,07 b) Graphics Animation and Gaming 1,843,15 c) System Integration and Support 4,239.03 72,509.25 8.3 Out of the above revenue streams, we find that major revenue has been earned from rendering of product design services. Under Product design, the assessee has carried major project of design and developing of a complete electronic control unit (ECU) including hardware and software for hybrid electric vehicle, designed the control hardware for India's Mars orbiter Mission, worked with GVK to design the experiential services for various consumer touch points at Mumbai International Airport's new integrated terminal-2. The relevant part of the Annual Report has been reproduced by the learned TPO in his order. From the various achievements of the company mentioned in the Annual Report, we are of the opinion that the company has earned revenue from designing using softwares rather than software development services and software maintenance services. The other services of graphic animation and gaming in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a software development service provider, has rejected this company as a comparable considering the fact that it is engaged in product development and product design services. The same view has been reiterated by the Tribunal in the other decisions cited by the learned Authorized Representative. Since, many of these decisions pertain to the impugned assessment year, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude this company from the list of comparables. 35. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. On a perusal of the documents placed in the paper book it appears that this company is engaged in various activities including development of niche product and development services. Thus, the company is functionally different from the assessee. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the Co- ordinate Bench in case of Telcordia Technologies India (P.) Ltd. (supra), which is for the very same assessment year, has excluded this company as a ITA No. 1689/HYD/2019 and S.A. No.98/Hyd/2020, A.Y. 2015-16 M/s Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad comparable. Similar view has also been expressed in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 161 & 2307/Hyd/2018. 9.1 On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that as per the financial of this company and particularly profit and loss account it cannot be seen that the Revenue from sale of product is just 2.5% of the total operating Revenue. Thus, this company is predominantly having Software Services Business and functionally comparable to the assessee. The assessee has not brought any material on record to show that this company is having intellectual property rights/intangibles. The R&D activity does not have any effect on the margins of this company and therefore, in terms of clause (i) of Rule 10B (3) if none of these differences is likely to materially affect the profit arising from such transaction in open market such uncontrolled transactions shall be considered as comparable to an international transaction. He has relied upon the direction of the DRP. 10. We have considered the rival submission as well as relevant material on record. The DRP has accepted this fact that this company is generating Revenue from sale of product though the same is not considered as in significant in comparison to the Revenue from Software Development Services. Further t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. and M/s. M/s ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd (supra). 12.1 On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that Larsen & Toubro Infotech provides services of application, maintenance, development, ERP data, warehousing Business-intelligence, infrastructure management services which are functionally comparable to the assessee. It has reported 100% operation revenue from Software Development Services. The ld. DR has further submitted that the DRP has considered Note-2 of the annual report on Revenue recognition where the company recognize the revenue when the services are rendered and related cost is incurred which shows that there is no reference for any product sale or inventory in the financial statements. He has relied upon the directions of DRP. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Global Logic India Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) has considered the functional comparability of this company in para 6.4 to 6.7 as under: "6.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute. The learned Counsel of the assessee submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in closing stock and resultant effect on profit and loss account is nil. 6.6 The next objection of the assessee is regarding multiple segments. From segment reporting on page S-1258 of the Annual Report (page 129 of PB-2), we find that the assessee has reported three business segments. The first segment is service cluster which includes banking, financial services, insurance, media and entertainment, travel and logistics and healthcare. The second segment industry cluster which includes Hi Tech and consumer electronics, consumer, retail and Pharma, energy and process, auto Mobile and aerospace, plant equipment and industrial machinery, utilities and E &C. The third segment, is telecom segment which refers to product engineering services (PES) which has been discontinued in this year. Regarding the PES, in Director's report, (available on page S-1225 of the Annual Report or page 96 of PB-2), it is reported as under: "TRANSFER OF PRODUCT ENGINEERING SERVICES (PES) BUSINESS TO L&T TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LIMITED (LTTSL) AND WINDING UP OF GDA TECHNOLOGIES INC. (GDA INC.) As part of business restructuring undertaken within L&T Group, it was decided to consolidate the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., extraordinary event of demerger of Product Engineering Services business has occurred which has also impacted the profit of the company at entity level. Similarly, the Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal in the case of M/s ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has considered the functional comparability of this company at Page 11 and 12 as under: "ii) L & T Infotech Limited - The company is not functionally comparable, as it has high brand value and market leader and also benefit from its parent brand. It has proprietary business and during the year extraordinary events like product engineering services business of the company was transferred to its subsidiary and has incurred expenses in foreign currency being 57.13% of its total expenditure. The company was excluded as comparable in the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of EMC Software and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra) at para 6(ii) at page 592 & 593 of Paper Book as under : "6 (ii) L & T Infotech Limited : The company has a margin of 24.61% and has high brand value and is a market leader, high presence and the intangible income in proprietary products. Significant expenditure in foreign curr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y 2011-12. The Ld A.R submits that there is no change in facts prevailing in the current year vis-a-vis the years considered by the co-ordinate benches in the above said cases. Accordingly, following the above said decisions, we direct exclusion of M/s L & T Infotech Ltd." We considering the functional dissimilarity and judicial decisions and various facts which are not similar to the assessee functional profile. Accordingly, we direct the TPO to exclude M/s. L & T Infotech Limited from the final list of comparable in determining the ALP." 14. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above as well as following the earlier decisions of the Tribunal on the functional comparability of this Company, we direct the TPO to exclude this company from the set of comparables while computing arm's length price. 15. Infosys Ltd. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that as per the financials of this company, it provides solutions that span the entire software life cycle encompassing consulting, design, development, re-engineering, maintenance systems integration, package evaluation and implementation. In addition, the company develops/owns proprietary produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In foreign currency Crore Infosys Americas, Inc. USD O.1 million 1 Lodestone Holding AG CHF 20 million 136 Infosys Public Services, Inc USD 12.5 million 75 Edgeverve Systems Limited 1 (1) On April 15, 2014, the Board of Directors of Infosys authorized the Company to execute a Business Transfer Agreement and related documents with Edgeverve (Refer to Note 2.10.2 of the standalone financials). Refer to statement pursuant to Section 212 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the summary financial performance of our subsidiaries. The audited financial statements and related information of subsidiaries will be available on our website,www.infosys.com." Extraction from page 349 of PB-II 2.10.1 Investment in Lodestone Holding AG On October 22, 2012, Infosys acquired 100% of the outstanding share capital of Lodestone Holding AG, a global management consultancy firm headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland. The acquisition was executed through a share purchase agreement for an upfront cash consideration of Rs. 1, 87 crore and a deferred consideration of up to Rs. 608 Cr. The deferr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....focus on the twin goals of improving productivity and quality of our services, alongside working towards technology driven innovation and differentiation that will deliver greater value to our clients. At Infosys Labs, Service innovation is being achieved through enhanced automation, optimization, prevention and effective collaboration among described teams. Infosys Labs has established a set of service innovation groups focused on enhancing quality and productivity of six dominant Infosys services-Business Process Outsourcing; Infrastructure Management Services; Independent Validation Services; Application Development and Maintenance including Large Deals; Consulting and Systems Integration; and Modernization. These groups work on service platforms with a focus on automation, optimization, consolidation, and on enhancing the effectiveness of contextual collaboration for distributed teams. Under its Client Innovation umbrella, Infosys Labs has established six Centres of Excellence (CoE), namely Modernization, Advanced Analytics, Security and Dependability, Advanced Mobility, Experience, and Innovation Co-Creation. The CoEs work towards establishing technology- bas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 100.0 36.765 100.0 Software development expenses 26,738 60.3 21,662 58.9 17,603 39.7 41.1 Gross profit 15,103 Selling and marketing expenses 2,390 5.4 1,870 5.1 General and administration expenses 2,686 6.0 2,218 6.0 5,076 11.4 4,088 11.1 Operating profit before depreciation 12,527 28.3 11,015 30.0 While as in the case of the assessee company no such expenses have been incurred as it is catering only to its parent company. 12. Considering the above-mentioned factors, we are of the considered view that M/s. Infosys Limited is not a comparable company with respect to the assessee company for TP Adjustments." We further note that the size of the company as well as having brand value and leader in the market has been considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd reported in 36 taxmann.com 289 and held that Infosys Ltd., is not comparable having its giant size and brand value. Accordingly, following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench as well....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces Private Limited vs. DCIT (supra) has considered the functional comparability of the assessee at page 22 to 24 as under: "(v) M/s Persistent Systems Ltd:- (a) It is evident from Page No. 533 of PB-II that the company is mainly engaged in three areas such as products (IP Business), platforms (Solutions Integration) and services (Product Engineering) and is also selling its branded products. Extraction from Page 533 of PB-II "Business overview Your company specializes in building computer software products. Your company's business is organized with a focus on the following three areas: Products (IP Business), Platforms (Solutions Integration) AND Services (Product Engineering). Your company has decided to brand the product business separately from the Persistent brand and has named it 'Accelerite' (www.accelerite.com). Accelerite will be headquartered in the Silicon Vally and will help your Company provide clarity - the Persistent brand is for product development and the Accelerite brand is for products. Your company has organized the development and engineering teams around three strategies. Account-Led, Platform-Led a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have not been presented except for trade receivables as these items are used interchangeably between segments and the company is of the view that it is not practical to reasonable allocate these items to individual segments and an ad hoc allocation will not be meaningful." 13. From the above, it is evident that M/s. Persistent Systems Ltd is functionally dissimilar to the assessee company, it also has intangibles unlike the assessee company and further segmental data are not available. Hence, M/s. Persistent Systems Ltd cannot be treated as a comparable company with the assessee company for the purpose of TP adjustments." 21. Similarly, in the case of Infor (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), the Tribunal has excluded this company from the comparables of Software Development Service Provider in Para 7.7 as under: "7.7. As regards Tata Elxsi Ltd, Thirdware Solutions Ltd and Persistent Systems Ltd are concerned, we find that their comparability to the assessee has been considered in the assessee's own case for the A.Y 2007-08 and it is submitted that there is no change of activities of either the assessee or the comparables during the relevant A.Y before us i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9,153 3,500 Other Deposit 10,000 10,000 Custom Deposit 140,850 73,150 Deposit with MPPKVVCL 10,000 -- Sales Tax Deposit (Kotak FDR) 25,000 25,000 Deposit (M-VAT) 10,121,460 -- M.P.S.E.D.C. Ltd Total 10,325,863 121,050 The Tribunal has noted the fact that this company has MODEVAT and Sales Tax deposits. Therefore, this company is engaged in the sale of goods alongwith rendering of services. Accordingly, following the earlier order of this Tribunal, we direct the TPO to exclude this company from the set of comparables while computing the arm's length price. 24. Thirdware Solution Limited The Ld. AR has submitted that the company earns revenue from development and sale of software products. Further it is also involved in earning revenue from subscription contracts and sale of user licenses for software applications. From the annual report of the company in notes to accounts it can be seen that 100% revenue is derived from sale of products and revenue from sale of service is nil. The company has reported "purchases of stock in trade" amounting to INR 40.21 crores as a cost in P&L A/c. Further, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... during the year and has intangibles. Further the margins of the company fluctuate year on year basis due to different revenue recognition model which the company has adopted. The above comparable was excluded in assessee's own case on functional dissimilarity in the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2007-08 and learned Authorised Representative also relied on Lime Labs (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 101 Taxman.com 201 (Delhi Trib.). We found the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of LG Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in IT(TP)A No. 3122/Bang/2018 dt. 28.05.2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 has excluded the comparable as observed at paras 8 & 8.1 at page 4 as under : "8. We also notice that in A.Y 2008-09, the co-ordinate bench has excluded M/s. Thirdware Solutions Ltd also by following the decision rendered in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd (supra), where in it was held that M/s. Thirdware Solutions Ltd. is engaged in product development and earns revenue from sale of licenses and subscription. Further, the segmental details were not available. 8.1 It was stated that there is no change in facts. Accordingly, following the decision rendere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ets, Loans and Advances, Current Liabilities and provisions are classified based on specific geographical segment's business. The company maintains separate books of account for the reported segments. Wherever the costs are directly identifiable with the reported segment, it has been booked to that segment. Wherever common expenses are incurred, those expenses have already been considered for allocation and relevant entries in the books of account have been passed. Hence there are no un-allocable expenses. Further, cash, investment (net of provision) and bank balances are reported at the enterprise level. Current assets and current liabilities relating to the specific business segments are identified and reported. Those, which are not identifiable, are reported as common assets / liabilities." (d) As disclosed in the annual account it is also apparent that the company has acquired intangibles during the year. Relevant portion of page 210 of PB-II is extracted hereinbelow for reference:- "d) Intangible Assets and Amortization Acquired intangible assets relating to software purchased for company's internal use are capitalized at the cost of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hows that it is engaged in the Software Development and Testing Services. The other two companies namely Signity Technologies Limited and R.S. Software (India) Ltd., were included by the TPO in the final list of comparable but the DRP has rejected those two companies. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal dated 24.11.2020 in case of M/s ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer (supra). 27. On the other hand, learned DR has submitted that it is evident from the annual report of this company that it has incurred substantial expenses to the tune of Rs. 6% of the turnover towards R&D which is beyond the generally acceptable tolerance limit of 3% of the Revenue. The DRP has noted that the assessee has not controverted this finding of TPO. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 28. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The TPO and DRP has excluded this company from the set of comparables by applying a filter of R&D expenditure of more than 3%. The assessee has contended that as per the annual report, no R&D expenditure incurred by this company. The learned AR h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee has not disputed that the TPO excluded this company due to R&D filter breached by this company. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned AR would not help the case of the assessee. We further note that the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Infor (India) P Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 161 & 2307/Hyd/2018 dated 06.08.2019, which has been relied upon by the learned AR while supporting the other comparbales has considered the functional comparability of this company in para 71 and 72 as under:- "71. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below as well as the annual Report of Maveric Systems Ltd., wherein it is reported that 6% of the turnover has been spent towards R&D. 72. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we are satisfied that though this company is functionally similar, it fails the R&D filter of less than three percent of the turnover and hence cannot be taken as a comparable to the assessee." Accordingly, in view of the fact that this company is having R&D Expenditure equivalent to 6% of the turnover cannot be taken as comparable. 29. Athena Globa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the total Revenue. The learned AR thus contended that merely because this company is having unaudited financials of branch office outside India cannot be a ground for exclusion of this company as the contribution of the branch profit to the total profit is less than 25% and has positive impact on the overall financials. He has relied upon the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Infor (India) P Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 161 & 2307/Hyd/2018 dated 06.08.2019. 32. On the other hand, learned DR has relied upon the direction of the DRP and submitted that the financials of the branch office of this company are not audited and therefore, the authenticity of the same is doubtful and not reliable. 33. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The DRP has raised two objections while excluding this company from the set of comparables: 1st is unaudited financials of the branch outside India and 2nd failure is of export filter of 75% of total turnover. So far as the export filter is concerned, since the learned AR has pointed out that there is some calculation mistakes and this company is having 99.93% export ....