Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.2 In respect of ground No. 5, the ld. AR submitted that the authorities below have erred in including Stovec Industries Limited in the list of comparables. The ld. AR contended that the aforesaid company is not a comparable as Stovec Industries Limited has different financial year and also fails on RPT filter. The ld. AR referred to the Audit report of the Stovec Industries Limited at page 160 of the paper book to show that the financial year of the said company ends on 31st December, whereas the financial year of the assessee is from 1st April to 31st March. The ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. PTC Software (I) Pvt. Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No. 732 of 2014 decided on 26th September, 2016 has held that the company with a different financial year should not be treated as a comparable. The ld. AR in support of his contentions that the company with higher related party transactions should be excluded from the list of comparables draws support from the order of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Symantec Software Solutions Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 8673/Mum/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08 decided on 27-06-2012. The ld. AR contended that the TPO has erred in rejecting the objections of the assessee with respect to applying RPT filter in the case of Stovec Industries Limited. The assessee had applied RPT filter on segmental basis, according to which the related party transactions of the Stovec Industries Limited were more than 29%. Whereas, the TPO applied RPT filter on the total turnover.