Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.1.1 Per contra, the ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

:-5-: IT(TP)A No. 76/Chny/2018 4.1.2 We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. From the above decisions, it is clear that the assessee had made out a clear case in its favour and hence, the AO / TPO is directed to exclude M/s. Infosys BPO Limited as comparable company while computing the ALP for the ITeS Services.

4.2 On the issue of Segmental margins to be considered for Microland Ltd., the ld.AR submitted that the nature of services of M/s Microland is that it engaged in ITeS and Infrastructure management. Infrastructure management services of Microland include cloud computing solutions, application management services, tool-based disaster recovery environment management services. So, it is functionally different and hence not comparable. Inviting our attention to the paper book page no 367, wherein the financials are placed particularly the Segmentation in financial statements and submitted that the financial statements has provided for segmental accounts bifurcating ITES (comparable service) and Infrastructure management services (non-comparable services). Therefore, it was pleaded that ITES segment should be considered as comparable to :-6-: IT(TP)A No. 76/Chny/2018 the assessee's business. In support of his claim, the ld.AR relied on the following judicial judgments:-