THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FIRST ADVANTAGE GLOBAL OPERATING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), BMTC BUILDING, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE) AND:

M/S FIRST ADVANTAGE GLOBAL OPERATING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, 9 FORMERLY KNOWN AS FIRST ADVANTAGE, OFFSHORE SERVICES PVT LTD., LEVEL – I, EXPLORER BUILDING, INTERNATIONAL TECH PARK, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE – 560066, PAN: AAACZ1029M. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT VANAJA M R, ADVOCATE)

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.370/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11.

This

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in including comparable, M/s.Silverline Technologies Ltd. & R Systems International Ltd., even when though the comparable have a different accounting year than the taxpayer and also while the comparable is falling a qualitative filter applied by Transfer Pricing Officer?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in rejecting M/s.Accentia Technologies Ltd. As comparable on the ground that it is functionally different when the primary source of income of the comparable-companies are from provision of ITES?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in remitting the inclusion of comparables namely M/s.R.Systems International Pvt. Ltd. And Caliber Point business solutions Ltd. Back to the taxpayer and also the comparable is falling a qualitative filter applied by transfer pricing officer?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature as Tribunal has not appreciated the findings of Transfer Pricing Officer which are well supported with materials and after application of Rule 10B of I.T. Rules?”

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.