M/S NARUS NETWORKS P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1631/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 January 2017AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Bodh tree consulting ltd. was functionally similar to the assessee as both were engaged in software development services. Therefore, it could not be excluded from the comparable list.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Narus Networks Private Limited, appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. The primary issue was the exclusion of Bodh tree consulting ltd. from the list of comparable companies.

What were the issues?

Whether Bodh tree consulting ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparable companies due to functional dissimilarity with the assessee's software development services.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SHRI LALIT KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri. Dhanesh Bafna, CA
For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Hearing: 22.12.2016Pronounced: 31.1.2017

Per Lalit Kumar, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Bangalore, pertaining to the AY 2009-10.

IT(TP)A No. 1631/Bang/2014 Page 2 of 4

2.

Grounds of appeal are as under:

3.

The ld AR for the assessee relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the matter of Infinera India Pvt Ltd vs ITO IT(TP) no 1008/2014 dated

IT(TP)A No. 1631/Bang/2014 Page 3 of 4 30.6.2016 for the exclusion of the company i.e., Bodh tree consulting ltd. In the said case it was mentioned as under:

“in this case, it is noted by the Tribunal that this company is in the business of software product and was engaged in providing open and end to end web solutions software consultancy and design and development of software using the latest technology and therefore the same cannot be considered as comparable in the case of companies renderings software development services as in the present case. Therefore I respectfully following the Tribunal order, we hold this company is also excluded from the list of final comparable.”

5.

The reading of this order clearly shows that the company namely Infinera was engaged in providing open and end to end web solutions software consultancy and design and development of software using the latest technology whereas Bodh tree consulting ltd was providing software development services, on account of the functionally different companies Bodh tree consulting ltd was excluded from the list of comparable.

6.

In the present case, the assessee is engaged in providing software development services, and Bodh tree consulting ltd., is also rendering the software development services and therefore Bodh tree consulting ltd., cannot be excluded from the list of comparable being functionally similar to the assessee. Even otherwise, the objection raised by the assessee to the show cause notice before the TPO was this that the margins are highly fluctuating and therefore, for this reason also, the judgment cannot be applied to the present set of facts. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the assessee. Moreover, this company was included in the list of comparables on the basis of similarity of functions in previous years also and no objection was raised with respect to functional dissimilarity to that of IT(TP)A No. 1631/Bang/2014 Page 4 of 4 the assessing company. In this view of the matter also, the contention of the assessee for excluding this company namely Bodh tree Consulting Ltd., is required to be rejected. We reject the same.

14.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this day of 31st January, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →