ITAT Bangalore Judgments — April 2017

The Tribunal held that Infosys Technologies Ltd. cannot be considered a comparable entity due to its giant status and different risk profile compared to the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction regarding risk adjustment and the reduction of foreign currency expenses from export turnover for Section 10A benefit.

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not comply with the DRP's directions and that the TPO and DRP did not adequately address the assessee's contentions regarding the CUP method and the preference for internal comparables. The matter was therefore remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee's non-compliance was due to a change in its incumbent and not deliberate. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that Infosys Technologies Ltd. cannot be considered a comparable entity due to its giant status and different risk profile compared to the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction regarding risk adjustment and the reduction of foreign currency expenses from export turnover for Section 10A benefit.

The Tribunal held that while adjustments for underutilization of capacity impacting margins should be made, the assessee failed to demonstrate such underutilization. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the AO/TPO for adjudication. The Tribunal also admitted additional grounds related to corporate issues and remanded them for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had gone beyond his powers in rejecting the application. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee violated clause (f) of Section 80-IB(10) as allotments were made after its insertion, and the assessee failed to prove prior agreements or consideration paid. The Tribunal also found violations of clause (c) due to deviations from the sanctioned plan.

The Tribunal held that while adjustments for underutilization of capacity impacting margins should be made, the assessee failed to demonstrate such underutilization. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the AO/TPO for adjudication. The Tribunal also admitted additional grounds related to corporate issues and remanded them for fresh adjudication.