2025 (1) TMI 1715

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The assessee has raised 12 grounds of appeal. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee did not press ground Nos.1 & 2 related to the limitation issue. Ground No.3 is also not pressed by the assessee related to the DIN issue. Therefore, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 3. In ground Nos.4 to 7, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that assessee wanted to incorporate one comparable in the TP study viz., Infomile Technology P. Ltd. He further contended to exclude 9 comparables from the list of comparables selected by the TPO. It is the contention of the AR that the TPO has failed to apply turnover filter while selecting these comparables for determining the arm's length price (ALP). Facts of the cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the coordinate Bench judgment in the case of Quest Global Engineering Services Ltd., 150 taxmann.com 388 (Bang) for the proposition that companies having turnover from 1 to 200 crores are to be considered alike for conducting the TP study and this turnover has to be applied while making TP adjustments and the companies which have higher turnover should be excluded. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of Oracle and argued that turnover filter is not a criterion for excluding the comparables selected by the TPO. Findings with respect to ground number-4 to 7 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, so far as the inclusion o....