Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Before us, the Id. AR contended that the financial information downloaded from the MCA website constitutes information in public domain and should be considered in the comparability analysis. On the functional profile of the comparable, the Id. AR submitted that the comparable is engaged in providing services in the nature of technical assistance, procurement services, placement services, testing and recruitment, etc. He argued that since the functional profile of both the assessee and the comparable is the same, being business support services, the comparable should be included in the final analysis. The Id. AR further referred to page 23 of the TPO's order, wherein the TPO has included another company. Global Procurement Consultants Ltd., providing services similar to EDCIL (India) Ltd. He also relied on the decision of coordinate Bench in the case of Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 788/Del/2015) where on similar facts, EDCIL (India) Ltd. was included in the final list of comparables.
"30. Having considered the rival submissions -we find that the aforesaid company was held to be valid comparable in our own order for Assessment year 2009-10 by holding as under:
"19. We have heard the rival submissions and, perused the material on record. In the present case, the assessee wants inclusion of EDCIL. a government company, in the final set of comparable s adopted by TPO/DRP. The assessee inter-alia submitted that in the appellants own case for the assessment year 2008-09. DRP had directed the TPO to consider the aforesaid segment, namely, 'Technical Assistance' and 'Human Resource' as comparable to the assessee and since the business of EDCIL and assessee has remained unchanged from preceding years, EDCIL continues to be comparable to the assessee and there exists no legitimate reason to reject the company in the year under consideration. The assessee placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Limited 358 ITR 295, wherein their Lordships reiterated the law laid down in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 to hold that, where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years have been found as a fact one way or the other, and the parties have allowed the position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it is not allowed to change the position in any subsequent year. Having gone through the order dated 30.8.2012 for Assessment year 2008-09 in the case of appellant, it is stated that DRP has held in regard to the above comparable as under:
"1 Educational Consultants India Ltd. (EDCIL) According to the assessee EDCIL offer support services in the following areas:
Student placement Secondment of experts Technical assistance Procurement services Testing and recruitment services Technical support group Training and Management Services The company operates in three segments:
Technical Assistance, Institutional Development and Human Resources Development. The services provided under Technical Assistance and Human Resource Development have been considered as comparable to the nature of services provided by the assessee to its AE.
Further, we wish to submit the EDCIL was accepted as comparable to the assessee by the learned TPO during the assessment proceedings for AY 2007-08 as well as earlier years. Hence since the business of EDCIL and the assessee has remained unchanged from last year, EDCIL continues to be comparables to the assessee and there exist no legitimate reason to reject the company this year. "

After considering the above facts, we find that functionally it is comparable and TPO is directed to include it in the list of comparables for computation of ALP"