IVY COMPTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables and deleted the adjustment for interest on receivables. The issue of depreciation on foreign exchange loss was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the ALP adjustment made by the authorities for IT software development services. The assessee also disputed the addition of interest on outstanding receivables and a depreciation claim on foreign exchange loss.
What were the issues?
Whether certain entities were correctly included as comparables for ALP adjustment and if interest on receivables and depreciation on foreign exchange loss were wrongly added.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES : BENCH “B” HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI L.P. SAHU
For Assessee: Shri Prashant Meharchandani, C.A. For Revenue: Sri Ravi Kiran, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for AY 2014-15 arises against the Dy.CIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad’s order dated 30th October, 2018 framed in furtherance to DRP-II, Bangalore’s directions dated 27.08.2018 in case no.100/DRP- 1/BNG/2018-19 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) rws 144C(5) rws 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’ ].
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We notice with the able assistance of both the parties that assessee’s first and foremost substantive grievance challenges correctness of both lower 1 authorities’ orders making arms’ length price “ALP” adjustment of Rs.15,93,92,087/- in information technology software development services segment. We make it clear that the learned counsel for the assessee has only pressed for assessee’s 4th and 5th substantive ground alleging wrongful inclusion of M/s E - Info Chips Ltd., Infobeans Technologies Ltd., Infosys Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd., and Thirdware Solutions Ltd., in the array of comparables followed by its stand that first and last of the said entities also carry abnormal margins as well; respectively We notice in this factual backdrop that instant first and foremost substantive ground is no more res integra since not only this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench order for the AY 2005- 06 and 2010-11 have excluded M/s Infosys and M/s Persistent Systems Ltd but also yet another coordinate bench decision in ITA 2305/Hyd/18 in M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. for the very AY 2014 has rejected all these five comparable entities in the very segment of captive software development services thereby holding that all the said entities are not functionally similar. We thus adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis and direct the Assessing officer to exclude all these five comparables followed by necessary computation as per law. Assessee’s 4th and 5th substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal are accepted for statistical purposes in foregoing terms.
Next comes assessee’s 11th and 12th substantive ground challenging the correctness of learned lower authorities’ action adding interest on outstanding receivables by adopting SBI term deposit rates. We notice that this tribunal’s coordinate bench in the following cases : (i) Valuemomentum (ITA No. 2197/Hyd/2017 dt. 19th May, 2021) (ii) Open Text (ITA no 152/Hyd/2017 dated 19th May, 2021) (iii) Progressive Software (ITA no. 347, 391/Hyd/2015 dated 15th March, 2021) held that the impugned Arm’s Length Price (‘ALP’ for short) adjustment pertaining to international transactions based on SBI’s domestic lending rates than LIBOR is not sustainable. We, therefore, direct the TPO to delete the impugned adjustment for this precise reason alone.
Lastly comes assessee’s third issue (additional ground no.21) which is admitted after hearing both the parties regarding depreciation claim of Rs.6,82,894/- as a consequence to Assessing officer’s action having treating its foreign exchange loss of Rs.6,82,894/- as capital expenditure. Both the learned Representatives agree that the instant issue be restored to Assessing officer for his fresh adjudication as per law in view of the fact that the impugned foreign exchange loss have been treated as capital in nature. We order accordingly. This third and last issue is accepted for statistical purposes. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Pronounced in Open Court on 17th August, 2021.
More judgments on Section 144C(5)
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 486/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 498/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Tbea Green Energy (India) Private Limited… vs ACIT, Central Circle 1, Vadodara, GujaratITA 592/AHD/2026[2022-2023]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
- At&T Communication Services India Private… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 5593/DEL/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026