Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. To contest the above assessment the ld AR submitted that the assessee is contesting for deletion of the comparables namely:-

a. Persistent Systems Ltd b. Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd c. Sasken Technology Ltd d. Cybercom Datamatic Information Solutions Ltd.

9. He also pressed for working capital adjustment.

10. The ld AR submitted that Persistent Systems Ltd was also a comparable analysis in case of assessee for AY 2010-11. The matter reached the coordinate bench in that particular year and coordinate bench has deleted the above comparable in that year. He referred to page No. 955 to 957 of the Paper Book. He further submitted that there is no change in the fact and circumstances of the case and therefore, same should be excluded for this year too.

11. The ld CIT DR submitted that ld TPO has correctly held that same to be includible.

12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions with respect to the above comparable and find that the orders of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 7078/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 vide para No. 8 has excluded the Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd from the comparable analysis. In that order it was held that Persistent Systems as software services and products in its income segment, however, there is no segmental information available. The ld DR could not show us any reason that FAR of the assessee for AY 2010-11 is different in this year. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case we direct the ld TPO/ AO to exclude the Persistent Systems Ltd from the comparable analysis.

Page | 6

13. The ld AR submitted before us that the identical facts extend in this year also. He referred to page No. 636 of the Paper Book which shows that the Persistent Systems Ltd has a product; he also referred to page No. 644 of the Paper Book which is report of the directors wherein, the business profile showed that company is specialized in building computer software products. He further referred to page No. 704 of the paper book which is the business responsibility report of Persistent Systems Ltd. At Sl No. 8 he submitted that the company is engaged in outsourced software product development and IT Products. Therefore, he submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee.

14. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned TPO and direction of the learned dispute resolution panel with respect to this comparable.

15. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and found that Page No. 636, 646 and 704 referred to by the ld AR are belonging to the consolidated financial statement of Persistent Systems Ltd which has not at all were used by the ld TPO for comparable analysis. In fact the TPO has used Persistent Systems Ltd on standalone basis as comparable. It clearly shows that the revenue from operation at page No. 778 and further corresponding note NO. 21 at page No. 798 clearly show that revenue is only derived from sale of software services. Therefore, it is apparent that there is no sale of any product in this year. Therefore, the finding of the coordinate bench in assessment year 2010-11 that income stream of the company is software services and product is not applicable in the current year. As there is no product sale but only services there is only one segment hence, there is no requirement of any segmental information, as held by the coordinate bench for that year. Further, with respect to the commission paid which is also referred to page No. 799 under Note No. 24 read with Note No. 30 clearly shows that it is also paid to a related party and with respect to sales only. Therefore, there is no reference to any commission on sale of product. The reference made by the ld AR at page No. 636 of Accelerite Products with related to Santa Clara, California relates to US subsidiary Persistent Systems incorporated. Page No. 644 is an overview business of the Persistent Systems Ltd including its subsidiary and not of Persistent Page | 7 Systems only. Page NO. 704 is also related to the consolidated financial statements. Hence, these are not related to the comparability analysis hence rejected. Therefore, for this year we are not inclined to note that persistent Systems Ltd is functionally not comparable to the assessee. Therefore, the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010 - 11 excluded this company on altogether different facts, for this year we have noted the facts on the standalone financial statements of persistent Systems Ltd which does not support its exclusion.