Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Further the details in the website are only indicative of the functions which the company is ready to perform but may not have been necessarily performed by it in some earlier years. So the annual report and not the website needs to be relied upon for the actual functions performed by the company. The objections of the assessee have also been dealt in detail by the TPO in his order, which cannot be faulted with. Considering above, the objection of the assessee in relation to this comparable is not accepted. 4.5 As regards assessee's claim that Persistent Systems Ltd is in software product development, it is observed that the company is developing software for its customers whom turn are in business of software product development and outsourcing the work of onward development to this company. Thus the assessee has wrongly inferred that the M/s.Persistent Systems Ltd., itself is in software product development. In fact, the assessee itself is similarly placed as it is developing software for its AE, which in turn is finally using it in its software products. Considering above, the objection of the assessee is not accepted.

10.1 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us and deal with the companies removed by the DRP independently as under:
10.2 M/s.Sankya Infotech Ltd:
The DRP has found from the Annual Report of the company that it is engaged in-house research and development centre involved in the development activities of new products in the field of simulation and training. During the year the company has debited an amount of Rs.4.94 crores as R&D expenditure and of this Rs.4.83 crores was employee cost. That the company is in research and development and thus developing its own intangibles also becomes evident from the fact that intangible fixed assets are only Rs.78.27 lakhs against intangible assets of Rs.42.46 Cr. These intangibles include learning management products, training management products, simulator products, knowledge based contents etc., as against the normal intangible software purchase in case of routine software developer. From the above information it is clear that the company is in technical training and R&D in addition to software development. Complete segmental data relating to revenue from each :- 18 -:
The DRP while examining the annual accounts observed that the company is engaged in the development of software and software products. The company is also having a training centre engaged in training software professionals online projects. Out of the total Revenue of Rs.2.73 Cr the translation and interpretation fee was Rs.51.67 lakhs. and no segmental information related to software products training income, translation and interpretation fee is available. The translation and :- 19 -:
11.2 M/s.Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd.:
The assessee's requested for inclusion of M/s.Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd., which was selected by the assessee as comparables. The TPO excluded the company from the list of comparables since the company is engaged in products such as dexchange and financials does :- 23 -:
not give segmental data of software development and sale of software products. Hence the TPO was of the view that entire operational result of the company cannot be considered as comparable and accordingly rejected the assessee's request. The Ld.AR argued that the assessee company is engaged in the low end software services and comparable company is also engaged in software development services as evidenced from the Annual Report. Neither the TPO nor the DRP has gone in to the details as to why the company should not be taken as comparable and how the company is functionally not comparable. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the case should be remitted back to the file of the AO/TPO to verify the functional similarity and decide the issue afresh on merits. Accordingly, the inclusion of Avani Cimcon as comparable is remitted back to the file of the AO to decide the issue a fresh on merits.