Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S Lg Soft India Pvt Ltd , Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 27 September, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"C'' BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND
SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MP No.95/Bang/2019
(In IT(TP)A No.3122/Bang/2018)
Assessment year : 2014-15
M/s LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Embassy Tech Square, Circle-4(1)(1),
Marathahalli, Bengaluru.
Sarjapur Outer Ring Road,
Bengaluru-560 103.
PAN - AAACL 3009 P
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Appellant by : Shri K.R Vasudevan, Advocate
Respondent by : Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Date of hearing : 27.09.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019
ORDER
Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member
The assessee has filed this miscellaneous application with the submission that there are mistakes apparent from record in the order dated 28-05-2019 passed in IT (TP) A No.3122/Bang/2018 for assessment year 2014-15.
2. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of rendering software development services to its AE. He submitted that the issue relating to Transfer Pricing adjustment made by the AO/TPO was contested before the Tribunal. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had sought exclusion of six M.P No.95 /Bang/2019 Page 2 of 5 comparable companies, which, inter alia, included "L & T Infotech Ltd". He submitted that the Tribunal has adjudicated five comparables, but omitted to adjudicate comparable company named "L & T Infotech Ltd". The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had furnished a detailed chart mentioning the reasons for exclusion of the above said company and also placed its reliance on the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Metric Stream Infotech India P Ltd (IT(TP)A No.1418 & 2735/Bang/2017). Accordingly the Ld A.R submitted that non-adjudication of above said comparable is a mistake apparent from record and accordingly prayed that the mistake be corrected.
3. The assessee had sought inclusion of a comparable company named "I2T2 India Ltd". The Tribunal has adjudicated the same in paragraph 11 and 12 of the order. However, the name of company has been erroneously mentioned as "T2T2 India Ltd" instead of "I2T2 India Ltd". Accordingly he prayed that the above said mistake may also be corrected.
4. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We find merit in the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee. Accordingly following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 10 in the impugned order of the Tribunal, which will adjudicate the issue relating to "L & T Infotech Ltd":-
"10A The assessee has sought exclusion of M/s L & T Infotech Ltd on the ground that there were extraordinary events during the year, it possesses brand and intangibles, it M.P No.95 /Bang/2019 Page 3 of 5 has not provided segmental information and it has got sub- contracting expenses. The Ld A.R submitted that the above said company has been excluded by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Metric Stream Infotech P Ltd (IT(TP)A No.1418 & 2735/Bang/2017) relating to AY 2013-14 and also in the case of Electronics for Imaging India P Ltd (IT(TP)A No.1506/Bang/2016 relating to AY 2011-12). The Ld A.R submitted that there is no change in facts in this year also and accordingly prayed for exclusion of the above said company.
10A.1 We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that M/s L & T Infotech Ltd has been excluded by the co- ordinate bench in the case of Metric Stream Infotech P Ltd (supra) for AY 2013-14 and also in the case of Electronics for Imaging India P Ltd (supra) for AY 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."
5. It is pointed out that the name of company has been wrongly mentioned as "T2T2 India Ltd" instead of "I2T2 India Ltd". Accordingly we direct that the name of the company mentioned as "T2T2 India Ltd", wherever it occurs in paragraph 11 and 12 of the impugned order shall be substituted by the name "I2T2 India Ltd".
M.P No.95 /Bang/2019 Page 4 of 56. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27th September, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N.V Vasudevan) (B.R Baskaran)
Vice President Accountant Member
Bangalore,
Dated, 27th September, 2019.
/ vms /
Copy to:
1. The Applicant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
6. Guard file
By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
M.P No.95 /Bang/2019
Page 5 of 5
1. Date of Dictation .............................................
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member .........................
3. Date on which the approved draft comes to Sr.P.S ...................................
4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the dictating Member ....................
5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S. .......................
6. Date of uploading the order on website...................................
7. If not uploaded, furnish the reason for doing so ................................
8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk .......................
Dictation note enclosed
9. Date on which order goes for Xerox & endorsement..........................................
10. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk .........................
11. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order .....................................
12. The date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch of the Tribunal Order ...............................
13. Date of Despatch of Order.
.....................................................
14. Dictation note enclosed ................................................