AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 6047/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2008-09
Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2008-09 Agilent Technologies Vs Acit, (International) Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.Cp-11, Gurgaon. Sector-8, Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan: Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shrey Chakarborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25Th October, 2012 Passed U/S 144C/143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee, Agilent Technologies (International) Private Limited Is A 100% Subsidiary Of Agilent Technologies International Europe, Bv Which In Turn Is A Wholly Subsidiary Of Agilent Technologies, Inc. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Provision Of Software Development (It) Services & Information Technologies Enabled Services (Ites). It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2008 Declaring The Taxable Income Of Rs.90,31,260/-. Since The Assessee Has Entered Into Certain International Transactions With Its Ae, The Ao Referred The Matter To The Tpo U/S 92Ca Of The It Act For Determination Of The Alp Of The International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Aes. During The Course Of Tp Assessment Proceedings, The Tpo Noted That The Assessee Has Entered Into The Following International Transactions As Mentioned In The Tp Study Report:-
For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 92C
section 133(6) of the Act. Apart from placing reliance on the judicial decision cited above, including the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessee has brought on record evidence that this company is functionally dissimilar, and different from the assessee and hence is not comparable. Therefore the finding excluding it from the list of comparables
