ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EXXON MOBILE COMPANY INDIA PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

The Revenue has challenged the following grounds of appeal:

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing to exclude M/s. Excel Infoways Limited, as comparable, when it is found that activities are functionally similar to the assessee company. Rs.27,83,243/- 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing to exclude M/s. universal Print systems Ltd. as comparable, when it is found that activities are functionally similar to the assessee company 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to grant working capital adjustment to the Rs.1,17,00,866/- assessee Total tax effect Rs.14,84,076/-

Brief facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 29.11.2012, declaring total income of Rs.76,03,89,600/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and draft assessment order dated 07.03.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act. Pursuant to this, the final assessment order dated 28.04.2016 was passed by the A.O. by making the addition/disallowance on transfer pricing adjustment on international transaction on provision of back office services, amounting to Rs.90,07,259/- and disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) out of global support service charges amounting to Rs.3,57,44,189/-.

Aggrieved by this, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging the assessment order passed by the A.O.

The ld. CIT(A) excluded M/s. Excel Infoways and M/s. Universal Print Systems Ltd. as comparables on the ground that their activities are not functionally similar to that of the assessee company. Further to this, the ld. CIT(A) directed to grant working capital adjustment to the assessee, amounting to Rs.1,17,00,866/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue was in appeal before us. covered by the low tax effect as per the CBDT Circular No. No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015.

The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) had nothing to controvert the same.

Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We are of the considered opinion that the said appeal will fall within the low tax effect as per the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015. Hence, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect prescribed by the department.

The cross objection raised by the assessee is also hereby dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee are dismissed.