Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(E). ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD :

(1). The Ld. A.R had submitted at the very outset that the aforesaid comparable, viz. Accentia Technologies Ltd. was rejected by the DRP in assesses own case for A.Y 2009-10 for the reason that unlike the assessee company the said comparable earned revenue from sale of software services and was thus functionally different, as well as the fact that there was no separate segmental information available in this regard. That it was submitted that the said order of the DRP was not further carried in appeal by the Department before the ITAT, and by so doing the said findings of the DRP could safely be held to have been accepted by the department, and as such had been allowed to attain finality. It was further submitted that the TPO himself had rejected the said comparable in the case of the assessee for A.Y 2010-11 and A.Y 2011-12, for the reason that the said comparable, unlike the assessee was engaged in software development services and was thus functionally different from the assessee company. The 'Annual report' of the aforesaid comparable, viz. Accentia Technologies Ltd. for the year under consideration therein reveals that its operations have been classified under a single segment, viz. "Healthcare Receivables Management". That still further from a perusal of the 'Profit and loss account' of the aforesaid comparable, though it can fairly be gathered that it had generated income from three sources, i.e. Medical Transcription, Billing & Coding and Software Development & P a g e | 47 implementation, but however no segmental information is provided in the said annual report. It was further submitted before us that the TPO had considered the profitability of the aforesaid comparable, viz.

(3). We have heard both the Ld. Representatives, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the records made available before us. We find that the aforesaid comparable, viz. Accentia Technologies Ltd. was engaged in software development services and was thus functionally different from the assessee company. We find that the fact that the P a g e | 51 aforesaid comparable was functionally different from the assessee company had duly been acknowledged by the TPO himself who for the said reason had rejected the said comparable, viz. Accentia Technologies Ltd. in the case of the assessee for A.Y 2010-11 and A.Y 2011-12. We further find that that the aforesaid comparable, viz. Accentia Technologies Ltd. was rejected by the DRP in assesses own case for A.Y 2009-10, for the reason that unlike the assessee company the said comparable earned revenue from sale of software services and was thus functionally different, and there was no separate segmental information available in this regard, and the said order of the DRP having not been further assailed by the department before the Tribunal had thus attained finality. We further find that as stands gathered from a perusal of the 'Annual report' and 'Profit & loss a/c' of the aforesaid comparable, the latter was generating income from three sources, i.e. Medical Transcription, Billing & Coding and Software development & implementation, but however no segmental information was available in the annual report. We are further persuaded to be in agreement with the assessee that the TPO had considered the profitability of the aforesaid comparable, viz. Accentia Technologies Ltd. at an overall entity level, which includes income from software development, which had led to an infeasible comparison in the hands of the assessee company. We are of the considered view that on the basis of such incomplete information, the aforesaid company could not have been considered as a comparable. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and are of the considerate view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it can safely be concluded that the comparable, viz. Accentia Technologies P a g e | 52 Ltd., being functionally different on an entity level, thus in the absence of complete segmental information could not be taken as a comparable. That as observed by us hereinabove, our view stands fortified by the very fact that the TPO himself in the case of the assessee company for the A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12, for the aforesaid reasons had rejected the said company, viz. Accentia Technologies Ltd. as a comparable. Still further the order passed by the DRP in the case of the assessee company, therein rejecting the said comparable viz. Accentia Technologies Ltd., having been accepted by the department by not assailing the same before the Tribunal, further strengthens and supports our aforesaid view. Thus in light of outr aforesaid observations, we herein being of the view that the comparable, viz. Accentia Technologies Ltd. being functionally different, thus cannot be taken as a comparable, and therefore direct the exclusion of the same from th list of the comparables. That as the aforesaid comparable, viz. Accentia Technologies Ltd., being found to be functionally different, has been directed to be excluded from the list of the comparables, therefore the remaining issues on the basis of which the inclusion of the said comparable had been assailed before us are rendered as infructuous and are thus not being adjudicated upon.