TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s)-44, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2014-15. ITA No. 6123/del/2018 (Assessee's appeal): 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee did not press ground nos. 1, 3 and 4. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 3. In ground nos. 2 and 2.1, the assessee has challenged selection of a comparable viz. Mindtree Ltd. Appellant by Shri Mukesh Gupta & Ms. Neha Gupta, CAs Department by Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR 4. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of Barco NV, Belgium. As stated, the assessee is in the business of manufacturing of projector, parts and components thereof for control room and other division....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment year 2012-13 the assessee did not dispute inclusion of this company as comparable, for that reason alone, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the selection of the comparable without examining assessee's submission. Thus, he submitted, the issue may be restored back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for examining assessee's submissions on comparability of this company. 7. Though, learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he submitted, the issue can be restored back to the Assessing Officer. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. 9. As could be seen from the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer must afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. In addition to the main grounds, the assessee has raised the following additional grounds: "1. The appellant Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax/Transfer Pricing Officer in the appeal effect order has erred on facts in not including Maveric Software Ltd. in the final set of comparable even when it satisfies all the filters of TPO - as per directions of CIT(A)-44. 2. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax/Transfer Pricing Officer in the appeal effect order has erred on facts in computing the margin of comparable company Aeropetal Te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany has been wrongly taken at 9.56%, whereas, the correct margin of the company was (-) 47.71%. He submitted, though, this fact was specifically brought to the notice of the TPO in reply to the show cause notice, however, he has completely ignored the reply of the assessee while computing the margin of the comparable. Thus, he submitted, the issue may be restored back to the AO/TPO with a direction to examine the issue. 18. In view of the aforesaid, we restore the issue raised in the additional ground nos.1 and 2 to the Assessing Officer for examining assessee's claim keeping in view the directions of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the submissions made by the assessee. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 19. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices and software products, whereas, segmental information is not available. The factual finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals) could not be controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 23. Next comparable in dispute is Persistent System Ltd. 24. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has excluded this company primarily for two reasons, firstly, it is functionally different as the company is engaged in software product development and is dealing in outsourcing of software development. Whereas, the assessee has provided Software Development Services. The aforesaid factual position could not be controverted by the Revenue through cogent material. 25. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordinary event of restructuring might have impacted the profitability of the company. For this reason, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 28. As regards Acropetal Services Ltd., it is observed, in assessment year 2012-13 it was found to be a good comparable to the assessee. Since, there is no functional difference between the assessee and the comparables in the impugned assessment year, there is no reason, why the company cannot be treated as comparable to the assessee. Therefore, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Grounds are dismissed. 29. In ground no. 3, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of TP adjustment of Rs. 2,07,901, being interest on receivable. 30. Having considered riva....