TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w, the reference made by the Ld. AO suffers from jurisdictional error as the Ld. AO did not record any reasons in the assessment order based on which he reached the conclusion that it was "expedient and necessary" to refer the matter to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") for computation of the arm's length price, as is required under section 92CA (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT-A") erred in making an addition of INR 21,233,986 to the returned income of the Appellant by re-computing, the arm's length price of the international transactions under section 92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). 4. The Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in determining the arm's length price of the Appellant's international transactions with its associated enterprises in the Administrative/market support segment in the following manner: 4.1 By not accepting the quantitative filters selected by the Appellant in its transfer pricing documentation/fresh search and has instead applied his own additional/ quanti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parison done by the Appellant, the complete data for financial year 2008-09 was not available within the public domain. 8. That the Ld. AO erred in facts and in law in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234 C of the Act. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation. That the above grounds are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, rescind, forgo or withdraw any of the above grounds of objection either before or during the course of proceedings in the interest of the natural justice. 3. Learned counsel representing the assessee/appellant states very fairly that its 1st and 3rd substantive grounds hereinabove are general in nature. And that it also does not press for 7th, 8th and 9th substantive grounds as consequential and premature; respectively. Rejected in very terms. 4. We now advert to the assessee's 4.1 to 4.5 substantive grounds regarding the alleged improper inclusion/exclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal's decision in ITA No.827/Del/2014, M/s. Philip Morris Services India SA Vs. DDIT, dated 21.06.2018 that the entity in issue herein has a different business model. And that it had not carried out market support services i.e. the segment in hand. We thus hold this 5th entity between the parties M/s. Global Procurement Consultants Ltd. as not a functionally similar comparables which is hereby directed to be excluded in very terms. 9. Next comes the 6th entity between the parties i.e. M/s. Archohm Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The assessee invites our attention to the tribunal's order in ITA No.1882/Del/2014 (AY: 2009-10), M/s. Terex Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, dated 14.11.2018 at page 30 thereof that this entity is providing architect services than marketing support activities. We thus order for exclusion of M/s. Archohm Consultants Pvt. Ltd. from the assessee's list of comparables in very terms. 10. The 7th entity in issue between the parties is M/s. IBI Chematur (Engineering & Consultancy) Ltd. Learned counsel takes us to the assessee's paper-book at pages 139 i.e. its P & L account declaring income from engineering service charges than in administrative and marketing services s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r ending. That being the case, we quote CIT Vs. Mercer Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 390 ITR 615 (P&H) that suitable adjustment(s) could indeed be made in such an instance wherein the comparable could not be outrightly rejected on account of different financial year ending. We thus direct the learned TPO to finalize his afresh computation after including M/s. Ma Foi Management Consultants Ltd. in the assessee's array of comparables. The outcome of the assessee's remaining five entities (supra) does not go in its favour as per our considered opinion as it has been found in light of the learned TPO's discussion at page 84 they are not functionally comparable. And also their segmental details are not on record. Rejected accordingly. 16. Learned counsel at this stage, submits that the assessee further seeks to exclude and include some of the entities in the latter "ITes" segment. The three entities herein which are sought to be excluded are M/s. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd, M/s. Cosmic Global Ltd. and M/s. Crossdomain Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Bombay high court in PCIT Vs. PTC Software India Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 101 taxmann.com 117 (Bom.) appears to have upheld the tribu....