No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
आदेश / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Assessing Officer dated 27.01.2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘IT Act’). The assessee has filed cross objections against the appeal filed by the Revenue.
This issue raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of DRP in including certain comparables for benchmarking the Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction undertaken by the assessee.
The cross objections filed by the assessee are against rejection / selection of certain comparables in the final list of comparable drawn by the AO / DRP / TP.
Briefly, in the facts of the present case the assessee company was engaged in the business of Web Site Services, Support Centre, Revenue Accounting, Data Processing, Software Product and related services. The company provides software development support services to Ignify USA. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The AO made reference under Section 92CA(1) of the Act. The assessee had applied TNMM method as the most appropriate method to benchmark the international transaction of provision of software development services of Rs. 15.96 crore. The PLI applied by the assessee was operating profits over operating cost. The margin of the assessee company was 17.96%. The assessee had initially applied three years’ average margins of the comparable companies selected by it, but later had applied single year margin and the mean margin was 10.73%. The assessee had selected eleven concerns as comparable. The TPO, however,
3 ITA No.512/PUN/2016 And CO No.59/PUN/2018
except one concern, Acropetal Technologies Limited, had rejected all the other companies selected by the assessee and had finally selected eight concerns as functionally comparable to the assessee and the mean margins of the comparables worked out to 25.47%. The DRP had accepted the plea of the assessee to some extent and had included certain concerns as functionally comparable to the assessee and rejected two concerns which were selected by the TPO. One concern which was directed by the DRP to be included in the final set of comparables was Cat Technologies Limited. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the DRP.
The Revenue has filed statement of facts and has pointed out that inclusion of the concern, Cat Technologies Limited, has been accepted by the TPO and hence, no appeal is filed on this issue. However, other issues are raised against the order or DRP.
The Ld. DR for the Revenue had moved an application for adjournment; however, the Ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that in case the comparables which were finally selected by the TPO are included and also concern Cat Technologies Limited is included then the margin shown by the assessee falls within the Arm’s Length Margin of +/-5%.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In view of the concession given by the Ld. AR for the assessee, we proceed to decide the present appeal on the preliminary issue itself, without going into merits of issues raised by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee. The TPO in the final analysis had selected nine concerns as comparables and the mean margin of the comparables was determined at 25.47% as against the margin of the assessee at 17.94%. The DRP has directed the inclusion of Cat Technologies Limited and the mean margins of the comparables worked out to
4 ITA No.512/PUN/2016 And CO No.59/PUN/2018
22.78% as against the margin of the assessee at 17.94%. Hence the margin shown by the assessee falls within the Arm’s Length Margin of +/-5%. In such circumstances, we find merit in the plea of the assessee. The issues raised by the department are thus allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are held to be academic. Thus we do not proceed to decide the same. In view thereof, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee become academic.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 25th day of January, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 25th January, 2019. Bidhan/GCVSR आदेश की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; The CIT(A), 3. The Pr. CIT- 4. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे “ए” / DR 5. ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy//
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, तनजी सधिव / Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune