Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

B. SELECTION OF COMPARABLES.

10. The assessee agitated inclusion of certain companies by the TPO in the final list of comparables and also exclusion of certain companies which, in its opinion, ought to have been included in such list.

11. Before going into the question of comparability of the companies assailed before us, it is relevant to understand the nature of business carried out by the assessee. We have briefly noticed above that the assessee is engaged in providing software development services to its AEs. The assessee is providing end-to-end systems integration and consulting services in focused vertical market segments including Securities and Investment Banking, Airlines & Transport and Technology. The assessee's TP study report discloses that it is providing customized software application development for its AE within which it focuses on the services of Application development, Re- engineering and legacy applications, Maintenance of existing applications, Enterprise application integration and specialized quality assurance and testing services. The assessee is providing services in two kinds of projects, namely, Integrated projects (in which work is done both by the assessee and its US based AE to be finally delivered to the client) and Non-integrated projects (in which work is done by the assessee alone and this work is end product in itself). The above narration of facts indicates that the assessee is a captive unit engaged in providing software development services to its AEs only under this international transaction and is not selling software products under its own ownership. With the above background in mind, we will examine the comparability or otherwise of the companies assailed in the instant appeal.

(i) Avani Cimcon Ltd.

14.1. This company was not chosen by the assessee as a comparable for the international transaction of Software development services. The TPO included it by observing that it was also engaged into software development consulting company with client base in Australia, US, UK, Africa and the European Union with major focus on the travel and insurance industry. The DRP also rejected the assessee's contention against the inclusion of this company.

14.2. We have perused the Annual accounts of this company available in the assessee's paper book. Apart from its Balance sheet, Profit & loss account and some Schedules, the Director's Report and Auditor's Report, etc. of this company are not available. The ld. AR contended that the information of this company available in the public domain for the year under consideration has been downloaded and placed before us and except for these documents, no other reports etc., constituting part of Annual report for the year ending 31.3.2008, are available. However, our attention was drawn towards certain Tribunal orders which have considered the functional profile of this company on the basis of information available on its website. First is Tribunal order in Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No.6485/Del/2012). Vide its order dated 20.9.2013, the tribunal considered the functional profile of this company by noticing it to be a Product company owning software products like Dxchange, Travel Solutions, Insurance Solutions, Customer Appreciation, etc. Similar view has been taken by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of NetHawk Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No.7633/N/2012). Vide its order dated 6.11.2013, the Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 has noticed Avani Cimcon Ltd. to be a Product company. No contrary material has been placed before us by the ld. DR to show the functional profile of this company matching with the assessee. When contrasted with the assessee company, which is engaged in providing software development services to its group concerns, we fail to see as to how a software product company like Avani Cimcon Ltd., having intellectual property rights over some of the products developed by it, can be compared with the assessee on an entity level. We, therefore, order for the elimination of this company from the list of comparables.