Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the CIT(A). So far as Accentia Technologies Ltd. is concerned, he drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of the annual report of the said company, copy of which is placed at pages 269 to 314 of the paper book. Referring to page 311 of the paper book (internal page 51 of the annual report), he drew the attention of the Bench to the income from operations which is from three sources, i.e., (a) medical transcription, (b) coding, and (c) software development. Referring to clause (19) of the Notes to Accounts, he submitted that the auditors have stated that the company has only one segment of activity, namely, "healthcare receivables management" and, therefore, segment reporting as defined in AS-17 does not apply. He accordingly submitted that it is not known as to how much margin is affected by trading in software. The financials of the company cannot be representative of the medical transcription business. Therefore, on account of non-availability of segmental information, the company cannot be compared with that of the assessee. Referring to clause (2) of the Notes to Accounts, he submitted that during the year under consideration, Accentia Technologies Ltd. has undertaken significant acquisitions, i.e., it acquired 51% stake in Geo-Soft Technologies (Trivandrum) Ltd. and 51% stake in Iridium Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.. Due to this the revenue of this company has gone up significantly. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that Accentia Technologies Ltd. have been directed to be excluded on account of unavailability of separate segment in financials and extraordinary events impacting profitability:-

i) Nokia Siemens Networks India vs. ACIT, ITA No.333/Del/2013 (Del-Trib);
ii) Opera Solutions Management Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No.5761/Del/2014 (Delhi-Trib.);
iii) Virage Logic International India Branch Office vs. JDIT, ITA No.6919/Del/2014 (Delhi-Trib.)

15. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The only dispute to be considered in the appeal filed by the Revenue is regarding the exclusion of the two comparables namely, Accentia Technologies Ltd. and Cat Technologies Ltd. So far as Accentia Technologies Ltd., is concerned, we find this company is having its revenue from three sources, namely, medical transcription, coding and software development. However, no segmental details are given and it has been classified under a single segment namely "healthcare receivables management." We, therefore, find merit in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that it is not known as to how much margin is affected by trading in software and the financials of the company cannot be representative of the medical transcription business. Further, we find this company during the impugned assessment year has undertaken significant acquisitions. Clause 2 of the Notes to Accounts reads as under:-