Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. For I services, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that this company is in divergent high end services like web hosting, email services, spam filtering, domain names and DNS hosting, web hosting, email services, spam filtering, domain names and DNS hosting is also providing web design services, domain management services and email management services which cannot be compared to the assessee engaged in providing back office ITA No. 4406 & 4479 Mum 2012-M/s. Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd. support services. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in DCIT vs. Everest Business Advisory India (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 41/Del/2013 & 1191/Del/2013.

37. The ld. AR submitted that this comparable is into divergent high end services like web hosting, email services spam filtering domain names and DNS hosting, web hosting, email services and are mainly in a product services and cannot be compared. The TPO included this comparable by taking view that this comparable company is in software services and product. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the inclusion holding that TPO conducted bench marking after calling information under section 133(6). The TPO exercise has helped in authenticating and validating the date. We have noted that the Delhi Tribunal in DCIT vs. Everest Business Advisory India (P.) Ltd. (supra) for same Assessment Year excluded this comparable company holding that business profile of I Services shows that it is into high end diversifying services vis a vis the tax payer who is into divergent high end services like web hosting, email services, spam filtering , domain names and DNS hosting, web hosting, email services and directed to exclude from comparing with ITeS enabled services. Therefore, considering the decision of Delhi Tribunal, we direct the exclusion of I Services. (5) Coral Hubs Ltd. (Vishal Information)

47. The ld. AR for the assessee had argued that this company was no selected as comparable in earlier year nor in AY 2008-09. ICRA is engaged in processing and providing software development and consultancy in engineering services, web development and segmental data is not available and cannot be compared with the assessee who is engaged in back office support services. The ld AR for assessee strongly relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs BC Management services (2018) 89 taxmann.com 68 (Delhi). On the contrary the ld DR insisted that ICRA Techo Analytics was excluded by ld. CIT(A) from the set if comparable. The ld DR further submits that ld CIT(A) selectively applied parameters in excluding the comparables in contravention of the principles laid down in Rule 10B(2), which provides that comparability parameter should be applied uniformly to all comparable. We have seen that the ld. TPO included this comparable by taking his view that this company is engaged in computer software, software development sub-licensing and web hosting. The ld CIT(A) excluded it holding that this company is providing both software development and ITeS. It is also in sales of software products and thus not comparable. The Hon'ble Delhi Court in PCIT Vs BC Management ITA No. 4406 & 4479 Mum 2012-M/s. Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd. Services (P) Ltd (supra), while considering the comparability of ICRA Techo Analytics held that company providing consultancy business solution and testing, and high end BPO services, in absence of segmental data not comparable with ITeS.