Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.2 Before us, the Ld. AR has canvassed for exclusion of 2 comparable viz. Oxygen Bio Research Pvt. Ltd. & Syngene International Ltd. The perusal of assessee's TP study reveal that the assessee's AE was to provide basic designing for undertaking R & D activity and AE would place work order with the assessee specifying the scope of R&D to be carried out by the assessee. Our adjudication with respect to two comparable is given in succeeding paragraphs.

4.3.1 Oxygen Bio Research The Ld. AR has submitted that complete set of Annual Report for this year was not available in public domain and therefore, comparison would not be feasible. Another argument is that the said entity has been acquired by another entity during the impugned AY. Lastly, there was change in method of depreciation policy during FY 2010-11 which has affected its profitability and therefore, the same would not be a comparable entity. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal rendered in Capital IQ Information Systems India Pvt. Ltd. V/s DCIT [2013 32 Taxmann.com 21]. However, upon perusal, we find that all these arguments have already been dealt with by Ld. DRP which remained uncontroverted before us. Therefore, the stand of Ld. DRP, in this regard, would not require any interference on our part. Regarding issue of change in depreciation policy, Ld. DRP has already directed the Ld.AO to compare the margins of the tested party and the comparable before charging depreciation. The Ld. AR has placed on record the working of the same. Therefore, endorsing the same, we direct Ld. TPO / Ld. AO to consider Profit Before Depreciation for the purpose of benchmarking analysis.