Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

63. He submitted that L&T is a global IT services and solutions provider. It is involved in a diverse range of activities from analytics and information management, application development, architectural services, cloud computing, consulting, enterprise integration, infrastructure management services, integrated engineering services, mobility services, oracle services, SAP services etc., none of which are comparable to the Appellant's SWD services. Further, L&T owns several intangibles and enjoys significant brand value (intangibles of 18.56% of its asset base). As a result of this high brand value, the company enjoys a high bargaining power in the market. The company is also into development of products. It owns proprietary software products which are developed in-house such as Unitrax and Accurusi. The company has also incurred significant expenses in foreign currency amounting to 40.38% of its total expenditure which suggests that is engaged in provision of onsite services. Hence, it operates on a business model different from that of the Appellant and is thus incomparable to it. It is further submitted that L&T is functionally not comparable as it is a market leader and thus enjoys significant benefits on IT(TP)A No. 713/Bang/2017 account of ownership of marketing intangibles and intellectual property rights. L&T has been consistently excluded from the final list of comparables in the cases of assessees similar to the Appellant Accordingly, the Appellant submits that the company is a product company having significant intangibles and is thus not comparable to captive software service providers such as the Appellant. Detailed submissions in this regard are made at pages 320-327and pages 642-645 of the paperbook. He submitted that the DRP, however, failed to properly appreciate the assessee's submissions in this regard and thereby upheld its inclusion in the list of comparables.