DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

2.1 The Appellant assessee is engaged in provision of engineering drawings, design and consultancy services (engineering design and related services) to its Associated Enterprises (“AEs”) in relation to the thermal, nuclear and hydro power plant projects undertaken by these AEs.

After hearing the rival contentions, we find that the assessee has selected different set of comparables for both the assessment years. When questioned by the Bench, as to why the assessee is not consistent with the selection of comparable companies in both the years, though the facts are the same, the ld. Counsel submitted that different auditors were employed for both the years and they 2 had they had selected different set of comparables for these years. On a further question, we are informed that the TPO for both the assessment years selected different set of comparables 3.1. On examination, we find that neither the assessee, nor the Revenue is consistent in their approach. In fact on a further query, we are informed that, for assessment year 2011-12, which is not before us today, the assessee had yet another auditor, resulting in certain other companies being selected as comparables. The revenue has also taken a different approach than what was done in the previous two assessment years. Thus the assessee as well as Revenue has selected different sets of comparables for these three assessment years. 3.2. The inconsistent approach, both by the assessee as well as the Revenue, cannot be countenanced. Thus we deem it fit and proper to set aside the issue de novo to the files of the ld.TPO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee shall file a fresh TPO report for both the assessment years, taking a consistent stand and the TPO shall examine the same afresh. 9. The appeals filed by the assessee in both the assessment years stands statistically allowed.