Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Taking up ground no. 2.2 and 2.4 together, we like to observe that at the time of arguments ld. AR has submitted that it only in regard to the SDS segment the two comparables are questioned and as such for ITeS segment the assessee is not disputing the comparables as same do not affect the assessee much. In regard to the SDS segment we find the assessee has disputed two comparables and we discuss each one as follows; 7.1 Magnasoft Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. ("Magnasoft"). As per the ld. AR, this comparable fails RPT Filter applied by Ld. TPO, as in FY 2016-17 Magnasoft has RPT to sales of 28.05%. in FY 2016-17 (Please refer page 489 of paperbook). 7.2 Aptus Software Labs Pvt. Ltd. ("Aptus"). As per the ld. AR, this comparable fails Employee Cost to Sales Filter applied by Ld. TPO, as in FY 2015-16 Aptus has employee cost to sales ratio of 16.25%, whereas Ld. TPO has applied minimum threshold of 25%. Functionally Aptus is non comparable as Aptus is engaged in providing product engineering, infrastructure management and cloud computing services. Aptus is into diversified activities as mentioned above and does not prepare segmental accounts. The Appellant further relies on order of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Nokia India Pvt. Ltd (ITA) 6502/Del/2017) wherein companies have been held functionally dissimilar on account of lack of segmental accounts and diversified activities: 8.3 Ld. DR could not dispute these factual aspects as corroborated by material on PB. Accordingly, we sustain the contention of assessee that these two comparables needs to be removed and accordingly ALP be determined. Thus these grounds are allowed partly infavour of the assessee.