Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10.3. E-Infochips Bangalore Limited We find that the ld TPO had included this company in the final list of comparables for computing the arm's length margin. We find that the inclusion of the said company was the subject matter of adjudication by this tribunal in assessee's own case for Asst Year 2010-11 in ITA No. 587/Kol/2015 dated 4.10.2017 wherein it was held as under:-

16. As far as ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is concerned, the same is with regard to the action of the TPO and the DRP in accepting E-Infochips Bangalore Limited and Inteq Software Limited as comparable companies with that of the assessee. As far as the aforesaid companies are concerned the facts are that admittedly the information regarding the financial statement of these two companies were not available in the public domain and the AO obtained the details about the financial results of these two companies by issuing notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to these two companies. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that E-Infochips Bangalore Limited was not considered as a comparable company by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of another software development services company such as the assessee and that order of the tribunal is also in relation to A.Y.2010-11. Our attention was drawn to the decision of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Labvantage Solution (P.) Ltd. v.
"18. As regards M/s. Accentia Technologies Ltd., is concerned, we find that the DRP has directed to exclude this company by placing reliance upon the order of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2009-10 by holding that this company operates in a different business strategy of acquiring companies for inorganic growth as its strategy and considering the profit margins of the company and insufficient segmental data, held that his company cannot be selected as a comparable. It was also held by the DRP that on the very same reason of acquisition of various companies, being an extraordinary event, it had an impact on the profit of the company and the said company was directed to be excluded.

43. Before us the learned counsel for the Assessee has filed a decision of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of Unisys India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 26 (Bang. - Trib.). On the need for allowing working adjustment in determining ALP, the ITAT ITA Nos.284&485/Kol/2016 M/s Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech. (I) Pvt. Ltd.

(formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.

A.Yr.2011-12 Mumbai in the case of Capgemini India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 33 taxmann.com 5/[2014] 147 ITD 330, held as follows:

"35. The issue was taken before DRP before whom it was pointed out that the ITAT in its own case in 2007-08 has allowed the working capital Capgemini India Private Limited IT (TP) A 540/Mum/2014 adjustment. The DRP simply sustained the order of the AO on the issue, without referring to the decision of the ITAT in its own case.