Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

" 14.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is seen from the record that the TPO has IT(TP)A Nos.981 & 1070/Bang/2013 included this company in the list of comparables only on the basis of the statement made by the company in its reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. It appears that the TPO has not examined the services rendered by the company to give a finding whether the services performed by this company are similar to the software development services performed by the assessee. From the details on record, we find that while the assessee is into software development services, this company i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd., is rendering product development services and high end technical services which come under the category of KPO services. It has been held by the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Capital I-Q Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. Supra) that KPO services are not comparable to software development services and are therefore not comparable. Following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the aforesaid case, we hold that this company, i.e. e-Zest Solutions Ltd. be omitted from the set of comparables for the period under consideration in the case on hand. The A.O. / TPO is accordingly directed."

IT(TP)A Nos.981 & 1070/Bang/2013 10.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the TPO's action in including this company in the final list of comparables.

10.4.1 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record, including the judicial decision relied on by the assessee. We find that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for Assessment Year 2008-09 has held that this company is to be omitted from the list of comparables as it was into development of software products and hence not comparable to a provider of software services; observing as under at para 10.4 of the order :-

12.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company in the list of comparables on the ground that it is functionally different, being engaged in software designing and analytic services and is therefore not comparable to a provider of software development service provider, as is the assessee in the case on hand. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that a co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for Assessment Year 2008-09 has held that this company, being engaged in product development and product design services, is to be omitted from the list of comparables to providers of software development services.

ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. (supra) in its order for Assessment Year 2008-09 has held that this company is to be omitted from the list of comparables for providers of software development services.

16.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables.

16.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial decision relied upon. We find that a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for Assessment Year 2008-09 had held that since this company is IT(TP)A Nos.981 & 1070/Bang/2013 engaged in product development and earns revenue from sale of licenses it is to be omitted from the list of comparables for software development services, holding as under at para 15.3 of the order :-