INFOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.:

This is assessee's appeal for the A. Y 2012-13 against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) rws 92CA(A) rws 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, engaged in the business of sale of software licences and providing software development services and other related services to its AE, filed its return of income for the A.Y 2012-13 on 29.11.2012 admitting total income of Rs.11,96,28,846/- During the assessment proceedings u/,s 143(3) of the Act, the A.O observed that the assessee has entered into international transactions with its AE, the determination of the arm's length price of the international transactions was referred to the TPO u/s 92CA of the Act. The Ld. TPO, observed that the assessee has benchmarked the transactions under three segments,

2 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. namely, (i) software distribution, (ii) software development and related IT services; and (iii) Shared services. He observed that the first two segments are at ALP and therefore did not propose any adjustment. However, with regard to shared services, he observed that the assessee’s PLI was 10.13% and that the assessee has short listed six comparable companies whose PLI was 13.24%. He analysed the transaction and found the TP document of the assessee to be defective and therefore rejected the same and conducted fresh search by adopting TNMM as the most appropriate method. He accepted only two companies selected by the assessee as comparable to the assessee and rejected the balance four companies. Thereafter, arrived at the following set of comparables:- 1. Accentia Technologies Ltd. 2. Datamatics Global Services Ltd. 3. Eclerx Services Ltd. 4. e4e Health Care 5. Informed Technologies India Ltd. 6. Infosys BPO Ltd. 7. Jindal Intellicom ltd. 8. Microgenetic Systems Ltd. 9. TCS E-Serve Ltd. [Merged] 10. Cross Domain Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

The Assessee submitted its objections to the companies selected by the TPO. But, the TPO rejected the assessee’s objections and passed an order on 29.01.2016 recommending certain adjustments. In conformity therewith, the draft assessment order was passed by the AO, against which, the assessee preferred its objections before the DRP. 2.1 The DRP, vide its order dated 31.10.2016, directed the A.O to recompute the working capital adjustment by applying PLR of SBI of 13.85% and also to rework the margin of the comparable companies, (a) Datamatics Global Solution Limited, by considering subscription charges as operating in nature; (b) the Cross Domaine Solutions Pvt. Ltd., by considering membership subscription fee and internet subscription fee as offered in operating cost and to exclude dividend distribution cost from the operation cost; 9c) Jindal Intellicom Ltd., by considering subscription membership fee

3 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. as part of the operating expenses. In accordance with DRP directions, the final assessment order dated 08.12.2016 was passed by making the adjustment of Rs. 1,75,29,619/-. In addition to the TP adjustment, AO also disallowed the belated payment of employees contribution towards PF and ESIC u/s 36(1)(va) rws 2(24)(x) of the Act and also disallowed bad debts written off of Rs. 1,01,74,788/-. Against this final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer i. e. the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. TPO') and the Ld. AO under the directions issued by Hon'ble DRP, erred in making an addition to the Appellant's total income of Rs. 1,96,16,808/- (i.e. I,75,29,619/- based on the provisions of Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, ('the Act') and Rs. 20,87,189 based on the other provisions of the Act) and the said additions being wholly unjustified are liable to be deleted. TRANSFER PRICING Incorrect selection of comparables 2. Accentia Technologies Limited 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Accentia Technologies Limited as a comparable.

2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO, erred in and the Hon'ble ORP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Accentia Technologies Limited as a comparable, without appreciating the said company provided high end KPO Services, employed significant intangible assets, possessed brand value, had high onsite expenditure and abnormal growth patterns and had undergone a change in business model and therefore the same was not functionally comparable to the Appellant. 2.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble ORP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Accentia Technologies Limited as a comparable without appreciating that it carried out Medical Transcription, Billings and collections as well as Coding services without any segmental break-up and therefore the same was not functionally comparable to the Appellant.

4 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 2.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble ORP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Accentia Technologies Limited as a comparable without appreciating that on the same facts the said company had been rejected as comparable by the Hon'ble ORP in the immediately preceding Assessment Year. 3. Datamatics Global Services Limited 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Datamatics Global Services Limited as a comparable. 3.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Datamatics Global Services Limited as a comparable, without appreciating that the said company rendered both IT and KPO services, undertook research and development activities, had undertaken extra-ordinary events during the year (acquisition of CIGNEX and Vista) and held IPR, and therefore the same was not functionally comparable to the Appellant. 3.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in not considering the correct margin of Datamatics Global Services Limited. 4. Eclerx Services Limited 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Eclerx Services Limited as a comparable. 4.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Eclerx Services Limited as a comparable, without appreciating that the said company was functionally different since it was a KPO company which provided high end services, outsourced substantial portion of its work to third parties and had undertaken extra-ordinary events (acquisition of Agilyst Inc) and therefore, the same was not functionally comparable to the Appellant. 4.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Eclerx Services Limited as a comparable without appreciating that on the same facts the said company had been rejected as comparable by the Hon'ble DRP in the immediately preceding Assessment Year in the Appellant's own case.

5 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 5. E4e Healthcare Business Services Private Limited 5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in not considering the correct margin ofE4e Healthcare Business Services Private Limited. 6. Infosys BPO Limited 6.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Infosys BPO Limited as a comparable. 6.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting lnfosys BPO Limited as a comparable, without appreciating that the said company provided high end integrated services, had a high brand value and turnover in excess of 60 times that of the Appellant, undertook a- extra-ordinary event (acquisition of Portland Pty Limited) and possessed a substantial portion of intangible assets, and therefore, the same was not functionally comparable to the Appellant. 6.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Infosys BPO Limited as a comparable without appreciating that on the same facts the said company had been rejected as comparable by the Hon'ble ORP in the immediately preceding Assessment Year 6.4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in not considering the correct margin of Infosys BPO Limited. 7. Jindal Intellicom Limited 7.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in not considering the correct margin of Jindal Intellicom Limited. 8. TCS E-Serve Limited 8.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting TCS E-Serve Limited as a comparable. 8.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting TCS E-serve Limited

6 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. as a comparable, without appreciating that the said company had a high brand value and turnover in excess of74 times that of the Appellant, provided a wide range of services not comparable to the Appellant and also had fluctuating profit margins year on year, and therefore, the same was not functionally comparable to the Appellant. 8.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting TCS E-Serve Limited as a comparable without appreciating that on the same facts the said company had been rejected as comparable by the Hon'ble DRP in the immediately preceding Assessment Year. 9. Cross Domain Solutions Private Limited 9.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, 'he Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Cross Domain Solutions Private Limited as a comparable. 9.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting Cross Domain Solutions Private Limited as a comparable, without appreciating that the said company provided business excellence services, market research and data analytics, and therefore, the same was not functionally comparable to the Appellant. 9.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in not considering the correct margin of Cross Domain Solutions Limited. Incorrect rejection of com-parables 10. Jeevan Scientific Technologies Limited On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in rejecting Jeevan Scientific Technologies Limited as a comparable, without appreciating that the said company was functionally comparable to the Appellant and that on the same facts the said company had been accepted as comparable by the Hon'ble ORP in the immediately preceding Assessment Year. 11. Wise Global Limited and Savi Info Services India Pvt Ltd. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble ORP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in rejecting Wisec Global Limited and Savi Info Services India Private Limited as comparables, without

7 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. appreciating that the said companies were functionally comparable to the Appellant. 12. Virinichi Technologies Limited and Omega Healthcare Private Limited On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law} the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon’ble ORP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in rejecting Virinichi Technologies Limited and Omega Healthcare Private Limited as cornparables, without appreciating that the said companies were functionally comparable to the Appellant. Incorrect rejection of Appellant's Transfer Pricing study / Incorrect benchmarking analysis by TPO 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis / study prepared by the Appellant, without appreciating that none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 92C(3) of the Act were satisfied. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in r classifying the Appellant as being engaged in providing a mix of high end and low end services without appreciating that the Appellant was a captive service provider, providing shared services (i. e. low end services) to its Associated Enterprises and consequently all KPO companies / companies providing high end services (whether selected by the Appellant or the TPO) ought to have been rejected. 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. TPO erred in and the" <u' Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in conducting f a fresh benchmarking which was erroneous and liable to be rejected since the Ld. TPO: i. Used lower turnover filter without the application of an upper turnover filter, thereby disregarding the importance of turnover in the benchmarking of comparables ii. Selected certain companies wherein peculiar economic circumstances / extra-ordinary events had occurred during the relevant year iii. Selected companies which were not comparable to the Appellant iv. Selected companies earning abnormal profits v. Used Related Party transaction filter of25 percent as against 10-15 percent

8 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. vi. Used arbitrary filter of export sales applying a threshold limit of25 percent vii. Rejected of companies having a different Financial Year ended without appreciating that the results for the relevant financial year could be reasonably extrapolated from the Financials of the impugned companies, available in public domain viii. Rejected the multiple year data adopted by the Appellant Incorrect computation of Profit Level Indicator ('PLI') 16. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the V Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in considering provision for bad and doubtful debts as a non-operating expenditure while computing the PLI. Risk Adjustment 17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/ confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in not allowing risk adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 108 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 to account for differences between the international transactions undertaken by the Appellant, being a captive unit, and those undertaken by the alleged comparables. International transactions at Arm's Length Price ('ALP') after considering the +1· 5 percent benefit under the proviso to section 92C of the Act 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO as well as the Hon'ble DRP failed to appreciate that the international transactions undertaken by the Appellant were at ALP after taking into consideration the benefit of + 1- 5 percent under the proviso to Section 92C of the Act. DOMESTIC TAX Disallowance of employee's contribution to Provident Fund of Rs. 20,87,189/- 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making and the Hon'ble DRP further erred upholding 1 confirming the disallowance of Rs.20,87,189/- on account of payment of employee's contribution to Provident Fund under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act and the said disallowance being wholly unjustified ought to be deleted. INADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY 20. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO and the n Hon'ble DRP erred in passing impugned

9 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. orders without providing the Appellant with sufficient and adequate opportunity and in breach of the principles of natural justice and in arriving at conclusions therein based on incorrect factual averments 1 allegations and therefore, the said impugned orders, being bad in law are liable to be quashed. LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT 21. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding I confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying interest uls 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and the said levy of interest being wholly unjustified, ought to be deleted. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honorable Members to decide this appeal according to law". 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the TP adjustment and the comparables adopted for arriving at the ALP under similar facts had arisen in the assessee's own case for the A. Y 2011- 12 and also the subsequent assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. He submitted that similar orders were passed by the TPO and DRP in the earlier and subsequent assessment years and the Tribunal, after considering the issue at length, has passed the orders and therefore, the issues involved herein are covered in favour of the assessee. The copies of the orders of the Tribunal are also filed before us. 4. The Ld. DR, though, admitted that the issues which have arisen during the relevant assessment years are similar to the issues which have arisen in the assessee's own case for the A.Ys 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively, however, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record and taking the assessee's submissions into consideration that the ground Nos. 10 to 12 seeking inclusion of comparable companies as not pressed and Ground No. 17 also as not pressed, they are rejected as not pressed. Ground Nos. 13 to 16 on filters are also stated to be academic in nature in view of the directions of the Tribunal for exclusion of the companies as done in the earlier and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, these

10 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. grounds are rejected as academic. Ground No. 18 is also rejected as not pressed. 6. As regards grounds 2 to 9, we find that the assessee is seeking exclusion of the following eight comparables from out of 10 companies selected by the TPO. 1. Accentia Technologies Limited. 2. Datamatics Global Services Pvt Ltd. 3. Eclerx Services Ltd. 4. E4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt Ltd. 5. Infosys BPO Ltd. 6. Jindal Intellicom Ltd. 7. TCS E-Serve Ltd. 8. Cross Domain Solutions Pvt Ltd. on the grounds of functional and other dissimilarities.

11 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. reporting. This company is providing specified services as against the routine ITES services provided by the assessee. (2) Acropetal Technologies Limited:- On perusal of the annual report of this company which shows that the revenue is earned from engineering design services segment, and the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Symphony Marketing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (IT (TP) A No. 1316/Bang/2012) has directed to exclude the above company on the very same ground, DRP denied its exclusion. It is also clear that the major income of this company is from providing engineering 5 design services and information technology services which are not comparable to ITES / BPO functions performed by the assesse, (3) Eclerx Services Limited:- This company is engaged in proviiding KPO services and the comparability of company to ITES companies has been considered by various Benches of ITAT i. e., Hyderabad and Bangalore, wherein, on similar set of facts, this company was directed to be excluded. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions Put Ltd (ITA No. 102/2015) has also directed for exclusion of this company. (4) TCS e-Service Limited:- From the annual report of this company, it is seen that this company provides technical services involving software testing, verification and validation of software at the time of implementation and data centre service management activities, which makes the company functionally different from the services rendered by the assessee. 6. From the above observations, it is seen that all these companies are into KPO services. From the profile of the taxpayer as recorded by the TPO himself in his order, the assessee is into simple ITES services. Except for arguing that the assessee is also into KPO services, the Ld DR has not been able bring on record any material to rebut the findings of the DRP. In view of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the DRP. Accordingly, Ground no.2 is also rejected.” 7.1 Further, in assessee’s appeals ITA Nos. 161 & 2307/Hyd/2018 for the AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 also, the Tribunal at paras 54 to 56 has held as under:

“54. As regards eClerex Services Ltd is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is rendering KPO services, such as, data management and analytics solutions and has earned super normal profit during the year under assessment i.e. 70.26%. He also relied upon the assessee's own case for the A.Y 2011-12 wherein the Tribunal had held it to be a KPO and not comparable to the assessee.

12 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 55. The learned DR however, submitted that the assessee is also doing high end BPO services which are akin to KPO services and therefore, the said company should be retained as a comparable. 56. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that this company has been held to be a KPO service provider whereas the assessee has been categorised as a BPO by the TPO & DRP. Having held so, the said company cannot be treated as a comparable to the assessee. Further, in the assessee's own case for the earlier A.Y (to which both of us are signatories), we have held that this company cannot be a comparable to the assessee. Since there is no change in the activities of the said company, we do not find any reason to take any other view and therefore, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude this company from the final list of comparables. Respectfully following the above decision, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude, 1) Accentia Technologies Ltd, 2) TCS E-Serve Ltd., and 3) Eclerx Services Ltd., from the final list of comparables.

7.2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee had also relied upon the decisions of various High courts to support his argument that TCS E-Serve Ltd. has also high brand value, due to which, the case of the assessee cannot be compared with TCS E-Serve Ltd. The decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are as under:

13 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 2013-14, the TPO had not taken this company as comparable on the ground that it is functionally different and also had not taken it as a comparable in AY 2014-15 also. The Tribunal had taken note of this fact and has recorded so in its order for the AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. For the sake of ready reference, relevant paragraphs of ITAT order are reproduced hereunder:

“8. Applying the above filters, the TPO rejected the comparables selected by the assessee by observing as under: S.No Name of the comparable Remarks 1 Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd Rejected as turnover is less Seg.) than 1 crore 2 Cosmic Global Ltd Rejected as fails > 75% export revenue filter 3 Datamatics Global Services Rejected- functionally Ltd different 4 Informed Technologies Ltd Rejected as insufficient financial information 5 Ace BPO Services (P) Ltd Rejected as insufficient financial information 6 Jindal Intellicom Ltd Rejected as insufficient financial information 7 Omega Healthcare Fails employee cost filter Management Services P Ltd.”

Since TPO/DRP have not brought on record any change in the case of Datamatics Global Services Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant AY from the subsequent AYs, we do not find any reason to take any other view than the view taken by the TPO in AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 and therefore, the said company is directed to be excluded from the final list of comparables. 7.4 As regards E4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd., the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has no objection for considering the said company as comparable, provided the correct margin of the company is taken into consideration. In view of the above statement of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we direct the AO/TPO to consider this company as comparable to the assessee by adopting correct margin of the said company. Therefore, the ground of assessee against adoption of this company is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.5 As regards Jindal Intellicom Ltd. also, ld. Counsel for the assessee is seeking adoption of correction margin of the said company, therefore, the

14 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. AO/TPO is directed to adopt the correct margin of this company before arriving at the ALP of the transaction. Thus, the ground of appeal against adoption of this company is also partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7.6 As regards Cross Domain Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the subsequent AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 at paras 57 & 58 of its order has held this company to be a KPO. The relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:

“57. As regards Cross Domain Solutions Ltd is concerned, the case of the assessee is that it is functionally dissimilar as it renders KPO services. The learned DR, however, supported the orders of the TPO & DRP. 58. As regards the services rendered by this company, we find that at Page 172 of the Paper Book which is the Website printout, it is shown as a "knowledge center". The learned DR had submitted that if the contents of a Website given by a company is taken into consideration, then even the assessee would be falling in the same category i.e. Knowledge Process Outsourcing. The learned DR, except for relying upon his argument that the assessee is also into high-end BPO services, has not been able to point out that Cross Domain Solutions Ltd is not a BPO. Therefore, we direct exclusion of this company also from the final list of comparables.” As the ld. DR has not been able to bring any decision contrary to the above decision of the Tribunal, we are inclined to follow the decision of the coordinate bench and we direct the AO/TPO to exclude this company from the final list of the comparables. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 are allowed and ground Nos. 5 & 7 are partly allowed. Thus, the final comparables to be considered are: (1) Informed Technologies Ltd.; (2) e4e Heathcare; (3) Jindal Intellicom Ltd.; and (4) Micro Genetic Systems. 8. As regards ground No. 19 regarding disallowance of employees contribution to PF, we find that the issue raised in this ground is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions, some of which are reproduced hereunder:

“1. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Ganapathy Mills Company Limited [(2000) 243 ITR 879 (Mad.)] has held that no disallowance can be made where the contribution is deposited

15 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. late but within the grace period. In most of the cases the deposit has been made with in the grace period. 2. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT VS. Aimil Ltd. & Ors. [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del)] has held that if the employees’ share of contribution is paid before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), then no disallowance can be made. In view of the foregoing facts it is clear that the assessee deserves and is hereby allowed relief on this issue in the light of the above precedents.” Respectfully following the same, we direct the AO to allow the deduction of employees contribution to PF provided assessee has remitted the same into Govt. a/c before the due date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. This ground is allowed. 9. As regards ground No. 20 regarding inadequate opportunity by the lower authorities, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not pressed this ground, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 10. As regards ground No. 21 regarding levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C, charging of interest under these sections are consequential in nature, therefore, the AO/TPO is directed to compute the consequential relief, if any, to the assessee. This ground is partly allowed. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 26th November, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 26th November, 2019 K. Ravi/kv

16 ITA No. 212/Hyd/2017 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Copy to:- 1) M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, B-Block, Q city, 109, 110, 111/2, Nanakramguda, Serilingampally Mandal, RR Dist., Hyderabad – 500 032. 2) DCIT, Circle – 2(1), Room No. 514, 5th floor, Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad 3) DRP – 1, Bengaluru. 4) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 5) Guard File