Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The assessee filed its objection before the DRP raising various grounds of appeal on comparability as well as against inclusion of comparable companies namely Acropetal Technologies Ltd., Accentia Technology ITA No. 2243 Mum 2015-M/s Hapad Lloyd Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. and ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. The assessee also made submission for inclusion of Micro Land Ltd. and e4e Healthcare Business Services Ltd. The DRP after considering the objections of assessee and the submission made before them, partly agreed with the submission of assessee and directed to exclude ICRA Techno Analytic and to include Microland Ltd. and e4e Healthcare Business Services Ltd. in final set of comparable. The assessee also raised the contention that the TPO computed Arm's Length operating profit (OP) of assessee at Rs. 5,53,86,509/- and has not reduced the OP shown by the assessee in the financial of Rs. 3,38,70,976/- and without allowing the credit for OP already shown, the TP adjustment has been determines at Rs.5,53,86,509/- whereas the correct adjustment would be Rs. 2,15,15,553/-. The TPO/AO directed to reduce the OP already shown by the assessee. Therefore, as per the direction of DRP, the ALP was 11.85% which is lower than the assessee's margin of 14.92%. Therefore, the TP Adjustment suggested by TPO was deleted in the final assessment order dated 30.11.2015 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13). Aggrieved by the direction of DRP, the revenue has field the present appeal before us. On service of notice of appeal, the assessee has filed its cross objection before us.

10. For exclusion of e4e Healthcare Services ld. DR submits that the company is engaged in software development and is liable to be excluded in absence of P&L A/c. In support of his submission, the ld. DR relied upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in OKS Span Tech (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2018] 97 taxmann.com 498(Delhi-Trib.).

11. For ICRA Techno Analytics the ld. DR further submits that ICRA Techno Analytics should be included as a part of comparable on the basis of finding and the reasoning arrived by TPO.

13. For ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd., the ld. AR submits that the said company is engaged in the software development and consultancy, engineering services, web development and hosting and subsequently diversified itself into business analytics and business process outsourcing. No segmental information is available bifurcating its activities into software development and business process. The DRP has rightly held that activities is conducted by this company cannot be considered as ITeS and further in absence of segmental information this company is liable to be rejected from final set of comparable. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. B.C. Management [403 ITR 45] (Delhi), wherein in the same A.Y. i.e. A.Y. 2011-12, ICRA Techno Analytics has been held to be incomparable to the company engaged in ITeS services.

16. For inclusion of ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. (supra. The DRP held that ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. is into diversified business process outsourcing and cannot be cumulatively called ITeS and functionally not comparable. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court for same A.Y. i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 in PCIT vs. BC Management (supra) held that the said company is engaged in processing and providing software development and consultancy and engineering services, web development services. Therefore, the revenue also failed for inclusion of this comparable to assessee-company. In view of the above discussion, the ground no.1 to 3 raised by revenue is dismissed.