| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4386 (Bang-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 92C
Considering annual report placed on record vis-Ã -vis FAR analysis of assessee, comparable in question (Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.) could not be compared with a contract service provider like assessee and accordingly AO/TPO was directed to exclude that company from final list of comparables.
|
Transfer pricing - Computation of ALP - Selection of comparables -
Assessee filed miscellaneous petition and sought rectification of alleged mistakes apparent on record in order passed by Tribunal. Mistake sought to be rectified by assessee was in respect of the view taken by Tribunal in case of Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., which was included as comparable for transfer pricing purposes. Case of assessee was that this comparable was functionally not similar as it lacked segmental information. Held: The aspect on which comparable was remanded to AO/TPO, was considered by Tribunal in Electronics Imaging India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT. Therefore, mistake had crept in while deciding comparability of Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. with that of assessee. Therefore, after considering annual report placed on record vis-Ã -vis FAR analysis of assessee, aforesaid comparable could not be compared with a contract service provider like assessee and accordingly AO/TPO was directed to exclude that company from final list of comparables.
Followed:Electronic Imaging India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4187 (Bang-Trib) Finastra Software Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 460 (Bang) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3026 (Bang-Trib) and Cypress Semi-conductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT IT(TP)A No.356/Bang/2016 Commscope Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO in IT(TP)A Nos.166 and 181/Bang/2016.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 50B read with Section 55
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|