TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities below are that the assessee company engaged in the business of creating semiconductors, systems solutions and software that deliver better sensory experiences in mobile phones, personal media players, identification applications, cars and a wide range of other electronic devices. It has filed its Return of Income on 28.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 29,14,35,490/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) dated 29.08.2015 and 142(1) 08.09.2017 were issued. In compliance, authorized representatives of the Assessee Company appeared on various dates and furnished relevant details. The Assessing Officer observing that the assessee has entered into international transaction with its AE, referred the matter to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The impugned order and directions of the Hon'ble DRP are based on incorrect appreciation of facts and wrong interpretation of law and therefore, are bad in law. 2. The learned AO has erred in assessing the total income at INR 49,93,46,340 as against the returned income of INR 29,14,35,490 computed by the Appellant in its return of income for AY 2014-15. 3. The learned AO has erred in laws and in facts, in determining a sum of INR 10,76,56,487 as the balance tax (including interest) demand payable by the Appellant. 4. Transfer Pricing grounds 4.1 The learned DRP/AO/TPO erred in making an addition of INR 21,03,55, 133 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 1 crore as a comparability criterion and not applying a higher threshold limit for turnover filter; 4.5 The learned DRP/AO/TPO erred, in law and in facts, by exercising his powers under section 133(6) of the Act to obtain information which was not available in public domain and relying on the same for comparability purposes. 4.6 The learned DRP/AO/TPO erred, in law and in facts, by accepting/rejecting companies based on unreasonable comparability criteria: a) The learned DRP/AO/TPO erred, by accepting certain additional comparable companies by conducting a fresh independent search during TP assessment proceedings which are functionally dissimilar; • Infosys Ltd. • Thirdware Solution Lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited • Evoke Technologies Private Limited • Lucid Software Limited • Maveric Systems Limited • Sasken Communication Technologies Limited • Sagarsoft India Limited 4.7 The learned DRP/AO/TPO erred, in law and in facts, by not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in working capital position of the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparables. 4.8 The learned DRP/AO/TPO erred, in law and in facts, by not making suitable adjustments on account of differences in the risk profile of the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparables, while conducting comparability analysis. 4.9 The learned DRP/AO/TPO have erred in law and facts by determining a transfer pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the TPO has erred in including the following companies in the list of comparables in as much as these companies are not functionally similar to the assessee as well as they failed to qualify the various filters such as significant brand value investment, investment in R & D full fledge risk bearing entity etc. The name of the companies is mentioned herein below. i. Infosys Limited, ii. Larsent & Toubro Infotech Ltd. iii. Mindtree Limited iv. Persistent Systems Ltd. v. Thirdware Solutions Ltd. vi. R.S. Software (India) Ltd. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a brief synopsis, wherein, he has pointed out as to why these comparables are required to be excluded. Similarly, ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2 Persistent Systems Limited having revenue of 8103.64 Million from software services and other income of 323.76 million from income from other sources. Assessment year 2012-2013 is an abnormal year of operation to Persistent Systems Limited, which is evident from the annual report placed on record by the assessee in its paper book. Further, Persistent Systems Limited is having intangibles to the tune of 2402.67 million as evident from its balance sheet ended on 31.03.2012. Being so, it is not comparable to assessee's case" 10. Similarly, the coordinate bench has excluded the other comparables, for the sake of brevity we are not reproducing the findings of the ITAT with respect to other comparables. 11. Similarly, so far as the inclu....