What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative had no objection to the revenue's appeal being allowed. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was allowed.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which had excluded certain companies as comparables and made other adjustments. The assessee's cross-objection was not pressed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correctness of the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the exclusion of comparable companies and other adjustments made in the transfer pricing assessment.

DCIT vs M/S Siri Technologies Pvt. Ltd. | ITAT Bangalore 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER & SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN

For Respondent: Shri AR V. Sreenivasan, JCIT, Shri P.C.Khincha, CA

O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

This appeal is by the revenue and the cross objection is by the assessee and these are directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-IV, Bangalore dated 28-03-2012 for the assessment years: 2005-06.

The grounds raised by the revenue in its appeal are as under:-

“1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case.

2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the size, turnover and brand of the company are deciding factors for treating a company as a comparable, and accordingly erred in excluding MIs iGate Global Solutions Ltd, Flextronics Software System Ltd., L&T Infotech Ltd and MIs Infosys Technologies Ltd as comparables.

2 IT(TP)A Nos.788(B)/2012 & C.O. 161(B)/2015 3.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that profit on cost of more than 50% of the comparable company is abnormal without giving reasons for how the functions discharged, assets deployed and risks assumed of such companies were different from the appellant company.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the TPO ought to have excluded comparables having any related party transactions, not only those with more than 25% related party transactions on sales.

5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 6.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and I or delete any of the grounds mentioned above.

3. The grounds raised by the assessee in its C. O. are not being reproduced as the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the C. O. is not pressed.

At the outset, it was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the cross objection of the assessee is not pressed and the ld. AR of the assessee has no objection even if the appeal of the revenue is allowed. In view of this submission of the ld. AR of the assessee, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed.

3 IT(TP)A Nos.788(B)/2012 & C.O. 161(B)/2015

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Sd/- Sd/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore: D a t e d : 08.09.2016 am*

Copy to : 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 CIT(A)-II Bangalore 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6 Guard file By order, AR, ITAT, Bangalore

4 IT(TP)A Nos.788(B)/2012 & C.O. 161(B)/2015

ौुतलेख क� तार�ख……………………………………………………………………… DATE OF DICTATION………………………………………………………………………

2.तार�ख, �जस पर टाइप �कया हुआ मसौदे, संबंिधत सदःय के सामने रखा गया ह� DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER………………………………………………………………………………………..

तार�ख �जस पर अनुमो�दत मसौदे व.िनजी सिचव/िनजी सिचव के पास वापस आए DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE PS/Sr.PS……………….

4. घोषणा के िलए आदेश संबंिधत सदःय के सामने रखने क� ितिथ DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT………………………………………………………………………………

5. आदेश िन.सिचव/व.िन.सिचव के पास वापस आने क� ितिथ DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE PS/Sr.PS……………………..

6 आदेश अपलोड करने क� ितिथ DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE………………………………………….. 7. अगर अपलोड नह�ं �कया तो, उसका कारण IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO…………………………. 8. ब�च िल�पक के पास फाइल जाने क� ितिथ DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK……………………………….. 9. आदेश ज़ेरो�स/पृ�ांकन के िलए भेजने क� ितिथ DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX &ENDORSEMENT……………………… 10. फाइल मु�य िल�पक के पास जाने क� ितिथ DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK………………………………… 11. आदेश पर हःता�र के िलए फाइल सहायक र�जःशार के पास जाने क� ितिथ THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER………………………………………………………………………….

12.

अिधकरण आदेश के ूेषण के िलए फाइल ूेषण �वभाग म� जाने क� ितिथ THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DESPATCH SECTION FOR DESPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER……………………………………………………………………………

13.

आदेश क� ूेषण क� ितिथ DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER…………………………………………………………………….

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SIRI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments