Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.8 That the TPO erred on facts and in law in considering incorrect profit margin of the following companies despite a direction from the DRP for taking the correct margin for determining the arm's length price: 

                                       Margin                  I
                                     considered
                                           by         Actual
          Name of the company
                                          TPO        margin
                                      (Adjusted
                                        OP/OC)                  I
        Acropetal Technologies Ltd.     20.75%       17.99%
        Persistent Systems &            22.21%       17.90%
        Ltd. [Merqed] Ltd.                                      I

        Evoke Technologies Pvt Ltd       9.65%        5.59%     I
       Tata Elxsi Ltd. (Segment)                 12.75%                   8.03%
       Zylog Systems Ltd.                        26.97%                  24.95%



  (i)     Persistent systems Ltd
  (ii)    Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.,
  (iii)   Zylog systems Ltd.,
  (iv)    Persistent systems and solutions Ltd
  (v)     Wipro technology services Ltd
Ld.DR do not object for modified ground to be considered. Accordingly we proceed with the comparability analysis of the disputed comparable with that of assessee. To undertake this task, it is sine qua non to understand the Functions performed by assessee, assets involved and Risks assumed by assessee for the year under consideration.
which are accounted after depreciation as on the date of your ending.
Thus in the TP study report assessee has been categorised as a full-fledged enterprise no real service provider engaged in the business of software development services. Based upon the above analysis we shall undertake the comparability.
(i) Persistent Systems Ltd

6. Ld. Counsel submitted that this comparable has been included by Ld. AO/TPO. It was submitted by Ld.Counsel that this comparable has already been rejected by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No.1102/Del/2015. Ld.Counsel placed reliance upon various other decisions like in case of Cash Edge India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO in ITA No. 279/2016, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed this company to be dealing in software products and earns income from sale of both software products as well as services. It has also been observed that for the year under consideration this company was having insufficient segmental information.

9. Persistent Systems and Solutions Ltd Ld.TPO has included this company in the list of comparables. Ld. Counsel at the outset submitted that it is engaged in software development, licensing of products, sale of software products and maintenance contracts. It is also submitted that segmental data with respect to software development segment is not available in financials for the year under consideration. 9.1. On the contrary Ld.DR placed reliance upon orders of Ld. TPO/DRP.

9.2. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides on the basis of the records placed before us. 9.3. Admittedly this company generates revenue under various heads including income from software development services. From the financials placed at page 178/235 of the paper book with specific reference to page 219, 230 and 231, it is observed that this company generates software development revenue to the extent of Rs.18,94,90,457/-. Therefore it is not correct that segmental information in respect of software development is not pg. 17 ITA 6283/Del/2015 A.Y.:2011-12 NEC Technologies India P Ltd. vs. DCIT & ITA 312/Del/2016 DCIT vs. NEC Technologies India P Ltd.