M/s AT & T Global Business India Pvt. Ltd., V. I.T.O.,

ITA 1604/BANG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 160421114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T S N MURTHY
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (TP) A NO. 1 6 0 4/BANG/201 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 0 9 ) M/S. AT & T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. BLOCK A, GROUND FLOOR, SALARPURIA, SOFTZONE, BELLANDUR POST, BANGALORE. APPELLANT PAN: AACCA9362N VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(1), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT A PPELLANT BY: SHRI DHANESH BAFNA, C A. RE SPONDENT BY: SHRI T.S.N.MURTHY, CIT(DR). DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 /04/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11/ 0 6 /2015 O R D E R PER SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JM: THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15/10/2012 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13 ) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT] PASSED IN CONSONANCE WIT H THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY , WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND IT (TP) A NO . 1604 /BANG/201 2 M/S.AT&T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. PAGE 2 OF 12 APPLICATION SERVICES PROVIDER , HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH IT S ASSOCIATE D ENTERPRISE (AE) DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE DETERMINATION OF THE ARM S LENGTH PRICE (ALP ) OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS REFERRED TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) U/S 92CA OF THE ACT. THE TPO MADE A TRANSFER P RICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2,40,00,290/ - . THE AO, THEREAFTER, PASSED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER INCORPORATING THE SAID TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT , AGAINST WHICH , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP AND THE DRP CONFIRMED THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTM ENT PROPOSED BY THE AO. IN COMPLIANCE THERETO, THE AO PASSED THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A CHART SHOWING THE VARIOUS COMPARAB LE COMPANIES WHICH ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FOR THE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN. IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE ADOPTION OF THE TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ALP BUT THE ONLY CHALLENGE IS TO THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES ADOPTED BY THE TPO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OPERATING PROFIT ON COST AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 15.14% FOR SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES WHEREAS THE TPO HAS ARRIVED AT THE AVERAGE MARGINS OF THE COMPARABLE COMP ANIES AT 23.65% AND AFTER ALLOWING WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT, HE ARRIVED AT MEAN IT (TP) A NO . 1604 /BANG/201 2 M/S.AT&T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. PAGE 3 OF 12 MARGIN OF 21.65% RESULTING IN THE ALP ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2,40,00,290/ - . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED 7 COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES , OF WHICH 6 H AVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE TPO AND THE TPO HAS ADOPTED 20 COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING 12 COMPANIES ON THE GROUND OF FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE COMPANIES WERE ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE TPO AS COMPARABLE COMPANIES IN THE CASE OF 3DPLM SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS VS. DCIT (IT(TP)A NO.1303/BANG/2012 DATED 28/11/2013) FOR THE VERY SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND THIS TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE AT LENGTH HAS HELD THESE COMPANIES TO BE FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR FROM THE 3 D PLM SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. WHICH WERE ALSO INTO THE SIMILAR BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. HE PRAYED THAT THESE COMPANIES BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES AND ALP ADJUSTMENT MAY ACCORDINGLY BE MODIFIED. THE L EARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS, HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES: I) CELESTIAL BIOLABS LTD. II) INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. III) TATA ELXSI LTD. IV) WIPRO LTD. IT (TP) A NO . 1604 /BANG/201 2 M/S.AT&T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. PAGE 4 OF 12 V) KALS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. VI) PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. VII) AVANI CIMCON TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VIII) THIRDWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. IX) LUCID SOFTWARE LTD. X) QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD. XI) E - ZEST SOLUTIONS LTD. XII) SOFTSOL INDIA LTD. A LL THESE COMPARABLES CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO TAKEN AS COMPARABLES IN THE CASE OF 3DPLM SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD., AND THIS TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THESE COMPANIES TO BE F UNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR WITH THE SAID COMPANY AND HAS DIRECTED THEM TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. IN ORDER TO APPLY THE SAID DECISION TO THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY BOTH THE COMPA NIES UNDER THE RESPECTIVE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION S ARE SIMILAR. THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS THE SUBSIDIARY OF VSI SERVICES HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., MAURITIUS AND IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SOFTWARE SUPPORT SOLUTIONS TO VSI GROUP COMPANIES. THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSAC TION WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ALP ADJUSTMENT IS SOFTWARE SUPPORT OR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. IN THE CASE OF 3DPLM ALSO, THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION CONSIDERED FOR ALP ADJUSTMENT IS IN RESPECT OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN T YEAR IS 2008 - 09. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF 3DPLM SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD., IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE IT (TP) A NO . 1604 /BANG/201 2 M/S.AT&T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. PAGE 5 OF 12 BEFORE US. THEREFORE THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR REA DY REFERENCE: I) CELESTIAL BIOLABS LTD. 9.4.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE DECISIONS CITED AND RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WERE WITH RESPECT TO THE IMMEDIATELY PREVI OUS ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND THERE CANNOT BE AN ASSUMPTION THAT IT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE APPLICABLE FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL, THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING IS APPLICABLE TO THE TPO AS WELL WHO SEEMS TO HAVE SELECTED THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE BASED ON THE REASONI NG GIVEN IN THE TPO S ORDER FOR THE EARLIER YEAR. IT IS EVIDENTLY CLEAR FROM THIS, THAT THE TPO HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY INDEPENDENT FAR ANALYSIS FOR THIS COMPANY FOR THIS YEAR VIZ. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. TO THAT EXTENT, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE SELE CTION PROCESS ADOPTED BY THE TPO FOR INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES IS DEFECTIVE AND SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS INFIRMITY. 9.4.2 APART FROM RELYING ON THE AFORE CITED JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THE MATTER (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD SUBSTANTIAL FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DIS - SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND AND IS THEREFORE NOT COMPARABLE AND ALSO THAT THE FINDINGS RENDERED IN THE CITED DECISIONS FOR THE EARLIER YE ARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IS APPLICABLE FOR THIS YEAR ALSO. WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SO HELD BY CO - ORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESS EE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 (SUPRA) AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF TRIOLOGY E - BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF AND OTHER PARAMETERS OF THIS COMPANY HAVE NOT CHANGED IN THIS YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION, WHICH FACT HAS ALSO BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN ITA NO.845/BANG/2011 AND TRIOLOGY E - BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT . LTD. IN ITA NO.1054/BANG/2011, WE HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY OUGHT TO BE OMITTED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. THE A.O./TPO ARE ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED. II) INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 11.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONS IDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DIS - SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IS NOT COMPARABLE AND THE FINDING RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TRILOGY E - BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IS IT (TP) A NO . 1604 /BANG/201 2 M/S.AT&T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. PAGE 6 OF 12 APPLICABLE TO THIS YEAR ALSO. WE ARE INCLINED TO CONCUR WITH THE ARGUMENT PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE THAT INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE SINCE IT OWNS SIGNIFICANT INTANGIBLE AND HAS HUGE REVENUES FROM SOFTWARE PRODUCTS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE BREAK UP OF REVENUE FROM SOFTWARE SERVICES AND SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT AVAILABLE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY OUGHT TO BE OMITT ED FROM THE SET OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. III) TATA ELXSI LTD. 13.4.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS COMPANY IS PRE DOMINANTLY ENGAGED IN PRODUCT DESIGNING SERVICES AND NOT PURELY SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THE DETAILS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT SHOW THAT THE SEGMENT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RELATES TO DESIGN SERVICES AND ARE NOT SIMILAR TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SE RVICES PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13.4.2 THE HON'BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TELECORDIA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. V ACIT (ITA NO.7821/MUM/2011) HAS HELD THAT TATA ELXSI LTD. IS NOT A SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PROVIDER AND THEREFORE IT IS NO T FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE. IN THIS CONTEXT THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THIS ORDER IS EXTRACTED AND REPRODUCED BELOW : - . TATA ELXSI IS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT OF NICHE PRODUCT AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WHICH IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE NATURE OF PRODUCT DEVELOPED AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY THIS COMPANY ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSEE AS HAVE BEEN NARRATED IN PARA 6.6 ABOVE. EVEN THE SEGMENTAL DETAILS FOR REV ENUE SALES HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE TPO SO AS TO CONSIDER IT AS A COMPARABLE PARTY FOR COMPARING THE PROFIT RATIO FROM PRODUCT AND SERVICES. THUS, ON THESE FACTS, WE ARE UNABLE TO TREAT THIS COMPANY AS FIT FOR COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS FOR DETERMINING T HE ARM S LENGTH PRICE FOR THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE PORTION. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE EXTRACTS OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY PRODUCED BEFORE US, THE FACTS PERTAINING TO TATA ELXSI HAVE NOT CHANGED FROM AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION IN THE SET OF COMPARABLES IN THE CASE ON HAND. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. IT (TP) A NO . 1604 /BANG/201 2 M/S.AT&T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. PAGE 7 OF 12 IV) WIPRO LTD. 12.4.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIE S AND CAREFULLY PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY FROM THE SET OF COMPARABLES. IT IS SEEN THAT THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED BOTH IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCT DE VELOPMENT SERVICES. THERE IS NO INFORMATION ON THE SEGMENTAL BIFURCATION OF REVENUE FROM SALE OF PRODUCT AND SOFTWARE SERVICES. THE TPO APPEARS TO HAVE ADOPTED THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE WITHOUT DEMONSTRATING HOW THE COMPANY SATISFIES THE SOFTWARE DEVE LOPMENT SALES 75% OF THE TOTAL REVENUE FILTER ADOPTED BY HIM. ANOTHER MAJOR FLAW IN THE COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE TPO IS THAT HE ADOPTED COMPARISON OF THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WIPRO WITH THE STAND ALONE FINANCIALS OF THE ASSESSEE; WHICH IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE COMPARISON. 12.4.2 WE ALSO FIND THAT THIS COMPANY OWNS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE FORM OF REGISTERED PATENTS AND SEVERAL PENDING APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT OF PATENTS. IN THIS REGARD, THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH O F THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF 24/7 CUSTOMER.COM PVT. LTD. (ITA NO.227/BANG/2010) HAS HELD THAT A COMPANY OWNING INTANGIBLES CANNOT BE COMPARED TO A LOW RISK CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER WHO DOES NOT OWN ANY SUCH INTANGIBLE AND HENCE DOES NOT HAVE AN ADDITIONA L ADVANTAGE IN THE MARKET. AS THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND DOES NOT OWN ANY INTANGIBLES, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I.E. 24/7 CUSTOMER.COM PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE CONSIDERE D AS A COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO TO OMIT THIS COMPANY FROM THE SET OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES IN THE CASE ON HAND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. V) KALS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. 10.4 WE HAVE HEARD BOT H PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE TPO HAS DRAWN CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT. THIS INFORMATIO N WHICH WAS NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN USED BY THE TPO, MORE SO WHEN THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF TRIOLOGY E - BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAVE HELD THAT THIS COMPANY WAS DEVELOPING SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND WAS NOT PURELY OR MAINLY A SOFTWARE SERVICE PR OVIDER. APART FROM RELYING OF THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS OF CO - ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IT (TP) A NO . 1604 /BANG/201 2 M/S.AT&T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. PAGE 8 OF 12 (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD EVIDENCE FROM VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE COMPANY S ANNUAL REPORT TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY D IS - SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT FORM THE ASSESSEE AND THAT SINCE THE FINDINGS RENDERED IN THE DECISIONS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 (CITED SUPRA) ARE APPLICABLE FOR THIS YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ALSO, THIS COMP ANY OUGHT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY I.E. KALS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD., IS TO BE OMITTED FORM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. VI) PERSISTENT SYSTEMS : 17.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD THAT THIS COMPANY I.E. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD., IS ENGAGED IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCT DESIGN SERVICES WHI LE THE ASSESSEE IS A SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PROVIDER. WE FIND THAT, AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SEGMENTAL DETAILS ARE NOT GIVEN SEPARATELY. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED IN THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF T ELECORDIA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SEGMENTAL DETAILS / INFORMATION A COMPANY CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS, WE HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY I.E. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. OUGHT TO BE OMITTED FROM THE SET OF COMPARABLES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. VII) AVANI CINCOM TECHNOLOGIES LTD . : 7.6.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT THE TPO HAS INCLUDED THIS COMPANY IN THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE TPO TO HAVE NECESSARILY FURNISHED THE INFORMATION SO GATHERED TO THE AS SESSEE AND TAKEN ITS SUBMISSIONS THEREON INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE DECIDING TO INCLUDE THIS COMPANY IN ITS FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. NON - FURNISHING THE INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS VITIATED THE SELECTION OF THI S COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE. 7.6.2 WE ALSO FIND SUBSTANTIAL MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN SELECTED BY THE TPO AS AN ADDITIONAL COMPARABLE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THIS COMPANY WAS SELECTED IN THE EARLIER YEAR. EVEN IN THE EARLIER YEAR, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS COMPANY WAS NOT SELECTED ON THE BASIS ON ANY SEARCH PROCESS CARRIED OUT BY THE TPO BUT ONLY ON IT (TP) A NO . 1604 /BANG/201 2 M/S.AT&T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. PAGE 9 OF 12 THE BASIS OF INFORMATION COLLECTED UNDER 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 DIS - SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IS NOT COMPARABLE. THEREF ORE THE FINDING EXCLUDING IT FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES RENDERED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR IS APPLICABLE IN THIS YEAR ALSO. SINCE THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE AND OTHER PARAMETERS BY THIS COMPANY HAVE NOT UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION WHICH FACT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN ITA NO.845/BANG/2011 DT.22.2.2013, AND IN THE CASE OF TRIOLOGY E - BUSIN ESS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD. (ITA NO.1054/BANG/2011), WE DIRECT THE A.O./TPO TO OMIT THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. VIII) THIRDWARE SOLUTIONS LTD . 15.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND EARNS REVENUE FROM SALE OF LICENSES AND SUBSCRIPTION. HOWEVER, THE SEGMENTAL PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PRODUCT DEVE LOPMENT ARE NOT GIVEN SEPARATELY. FURTHER, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF E - GAIN COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS DIRECTED THAT SINCE THE INCOME OF THIS COMPANY INCLUDES INCOME FR OM SALE OF LICENSES, IT OUGHT TO BE REJECTED AS A COMPARABLE FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE ASSESSEE IS RENDERING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. IN THIS FACTUAL VIEW OF THE MATTER AND FOLLOWING THE AFORECITED DECISION OF THE P UNE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THAT THIS COMPANY BE OMITTED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE ON HAND. IX) LUCID SOFTWARE LTD. 16.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD THAT THE COMPANY I.E. LUCID SOFTWARE LTD., IS ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CASE ON HAND, IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE S. WE ALSO FIND THAT, CO - ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 (IT(TP)A NO.845/BANG/2011), LG SOFT INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), CSR INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA); THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF TELECORDIA TEC HNOLOGIES IT (TP) A NO . 1604 /BANG/201 2 M/S.AT&T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. PAGE 10 OF 12 INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE DELHI ITAT IN THE CASE OF TRANSWITCH INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAVE HELD, THAT SINCE THIS COMPANY, IS ENGAGED IN THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND NOT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, IT IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT AN D DIS - SIMILAR AND IS THEREFORE TO BE OMITTED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PROVIDERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD DETAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE FACTUAL AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES PERTAINING TO THIS COMPANY HAVE N OT CHANGED MATERIALLY FROM THE EARLIER YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 TO THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX AND FOLLOWING THE AFORE CITED DECISIONS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND OF THE I TAT, MUMBAI AND DELHI BENCHES (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THAT THIS COMPANY BE OMITTED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE ON HAND. X) QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS: 18.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED AND CARE FULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THIS COMPANY I.E. QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD. IS ENGAGED IN PRODUCT ENGINEERING SERVICES AND IS NOT PURELY A SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PROVIDER AS IS THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THIS COMPANY IS ALSO ENGAGED IN PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND HAS SUBSTANTIAL R&D ACTIVITY WHICH HAS RESULTED IN CREATION OF ITS IPRS. HAVING APPLIED FOR TRADE MARK REGISTRATION OF ITS PRODUCTS, IT EVIDENCES THE FACT THAT THIS COMPANY OWNS INTANGIBLE ASSETS. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF 24/7 CUSTOMER.COM PVT. LTD. (ITA NO.227/BANG/2010 DT.9.11.2012) HAS HELD THAT IF A COMPANY POSSESSES OR OWNS INTANGIBLES OR IPRS, THEN IT CANNOT BE CO NSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY TO ONE THAT DOES NOT OWN INTANGIBLES AND REQUIRES TO BE OMITTED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES, AS IN THE CASE ON HAND. 18.3.2 WE ALSO FIND FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD. THAT THERE HAVE BEEN ACQUI SITIONS MADE BY IT IN THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT WHERE EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS HAVE TAKEN PLACE, WHICH HAS AN EFFECT ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPANY, THEN THAT COMPANY SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 18.3.3 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF 24/7 CUSTOMER.COM PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THAT THIS COMPANY I.E. QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD. BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES IN THE CASE ON HAND SI NCE IT IS ENGAGED IN PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND OWNS ITS OWN INTANGIBLES UNLIKE THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND WHO IS A SOFTWARE SERVICE PROVIDER. IT (TP) A NO . 1604 /BANG/201 2 M/S.AT&T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. PAGE 11 OF 12 XI) E - ZEST SOLUTIONS LTD. : 14.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY C ONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT THE TPO HAS INCLUDED THIS COMPANY IN THE LIST OF COMPAR A BLES ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE COMPANY IN ITS REPLY TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. IT APPEARS T HAT THE TPO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMPANY TO GIVE A FINDING WHETHER THE SERVICES PERFORMED BY THIS COMPANY ARE SIMILAR TO THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT WHILE T HE ASSESSEE IS INTO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THIS COMPANY I.E. E - ZEST SOLUTIONS LTD., IS RENDERING PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND HIGH END TECHNICAL SERVICES WHICH COME UNDER THE CATEGORY OF KPO SERVICES. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CAPITAL I - Q INFORMATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) (P) LTD. SUPRA) THAT KPO SERVICES ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND ARE THEREFORE NOT COMPARABLE. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF TH E HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID CASE, WE HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY, I.E. E - ZEST SOLUTIONS LTD. BE OMITTED FROM THE SET OF COMPARABLES FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE ON HAND. THE A.O./TPO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED. XII) SOFTSOL INDIA LTD. 19.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IN ITA NO.845/BANG/2011 HAS EXCLUDED THIS COMPAN Y FROM THE SET OF COMPARABLES FOR THE REASON THAT RPT IS IN EXCESS OF 15% FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ANOTHER BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF 24/7 CUSTOMER.COM PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.227/BANG/2011. AS THE FACTS FOR THIS YEAR ARE SIMILAR AND MATERIAL ON R ECORD ALSO INDICATES THAT RPT IS 18.3%, FOLLOWING THE AFORECITED DECISIONS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY IS TO BE OMITTED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF 3DPLM SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD., (CITED SUPRA) ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, WE DIRECT THE AO TO EXCLUDE THESE IT (TP) A NO . 1604 /BANG/201 2 M/S.AT&T GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. PAGE 12 OF 12 COMPANIES FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES AND RE - COMPUTE THE ALP IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JUNE , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (PRAMOD KUMAR) (SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER EKSRINIVASULU COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.