M/s Ametek Instruments India Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Inocme TAx Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2497/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5096 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G GURUSAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: G VAIDEHI
• Keywords: Transfer pricing
• Section: 143(3); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A NO.2497/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S AMETEK INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT. LTD., DIVYASREE NR ENCLAVE, BLOCK A, 4 TH FLOOR, PLOT NO.1, EPIP INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066. PAN AAHCA 2869 B VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MS. G VAIDEHI, C.A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G GURUSAMY, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.02.2020 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26-09-2017 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY LD DISPUTE RESOLU TION PANEL (DRP). IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 13 2. ALL THE GROUNDS URGED BY THE ASSESSEE RELAT E TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE IN RESPECT OF SOFTWARE DEVE LOPMENT SERVICES. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MANY GROU NDS, YET THE LD A.R RESTRICTED HER ARGUMENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING WITH REGARD TO EXCLUSION OF TWO COMPARABLE COMPANIES, VIZ., LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LIMITED AND PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. ACCOR DINGLY REMAINING GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF P ROVIDING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS OVERSEAS AFFILIATES. T HE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION W AS RS.13.46 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED OPERATING PROFIT/OPER ATING COST (OP/OC) AS THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI). THE P LI DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 12.33%. 4. AMONGST THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY TPO AND CONFIRMED BY LD DRP, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS EXCLUSION OF TWO COMPANI ES, VIZ., LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LIMITED AND PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LT D. 5. THE LD A.R PLACED HER RELIANCE ON THE DECISI ON RENDERED BY CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S METRIC STREAM INF OTECH (INDIA) PVT LTD (IT(TP)A NO.1418 & 2735/BANG./2017 DATED 27.02. 2019 RELATING TO AY 2013-14) AND SUBMITTED THE CO-ORDINA TE BENCH, ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, HAS HELD THAT BOTH THE ABOV E SAID COMPANIES ARE NOT GOOD COMPARABLE COMPANIES TO A COMPANY ENGA GED IN PROVIDING CAPTIVE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 13 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT ANOTHER CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF M/S ADVICE AMERICA SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE P LTD (IT(TP)A NO.2531/BANG/2017 DATED 23.05.2018 RELATING TO AY 2 013-14) THAT BOTH M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LIMITED AND M/S P ERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD ARE GOOD COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 7. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ONLY RS.13.46 CRORES, WHERE AS THE TURNOVER OF M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD AND PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD WAS RS. 3609.32 CRORES AND RS.996.75 CRORES RESPEC TIVELY. ACCORDINGLY SHE SUBMITTED THAT, ON APPLYING TURNOVE R FILTER, THE ABOVE SAID COMPANIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED. I N SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, SHE PLACED HER RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S NIELSON SPORTS INDIA P LTD (IT(TP)A NO.196/BANG/2017 DATED 28-06-2019 RELA TING TO AY 2012-13). THE LD D.R, HOWEVER, COUNTERED THE SAID CONTENTION BY SUBMITTING THAT TURNOVER FILTER CANNOT BE THE CRITE RIA FOR EXCLUDING A COMPANY, WHICH IS OTHERWISE COMPARABLE. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HIGH COURTS HAVE NOT RENDERED AN Y DECISION SO FAR ON APPLICATION OF TURNOVER FILTER. FURTHER RUL E 10B(3) DOES NOT PRESCRIBE THE TURNOVER FILTER AS A CRITERIA. 8. WE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS EXCLUDED BOTH THE COMPANIES VIZ., LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LIMITED AND PERSISTE NT SYSTEMS LTD IN ITS ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S METRIC STREA M INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT LTD (SUPRA) WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 13 11. AS FAR AS L&T INFOTECH LTD. AND PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. ARE CONCERNED, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. EPAM SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD. V. ACIT, ITA NO.2122/HYD/2017 FOR AY 2013-14, ORDER DATED 20.11.2017. VIDE PARA 12 OF THE DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIEW THAT PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. WAS INTO SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS AND NO SEGMENTAL DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE AND THEREFORE THE PROFIT MARGIN IN THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SEGMENT COULD NOT BE COMPARED WITH THE ASSESSEES PROFIT MARGIN. AS FAR AS L&T INFOTECH LTD. IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL VID E PARA 17 OF THE AFORESAID ORDER CAME TO A SIMILAR CONCLUSION TO HOLD THAT L&T INFOTECH SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY. IN THE LIGHT OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WHICH REMAIN UNCONTROVERTED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID TWO COMPARABLE COMPANIES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 9. HOWEVER IN THE CASE OF M/S ADVICE AMERICA SO FTWARE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE P LTD (SUPRA), ANOTHER CO-ORDINA TE BENCH HAS HELD THAT BOTH M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD AND M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD ARE GOOD COMPARABLE COMPANIE S AND THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ITAT ARE EXTRACTE D BELOW:- IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 5 OF 13 14. LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. AS FAR AS THIS COMPANY IS CONCERNED, THIS COMPANY ALSO RENDERS SWD SERVICES. IN PAGE-15 OF THE TPOS ORDER, THE FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY OF THIS COMPANY WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TABULATED BY THE TPO. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REJECTING SUCH OBJECTIONS HAS BEEN SET OUT AT PAGE-21 TO 23 OF THE TPOS ORDER. THE DRP UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TPO INCLUDING THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY. 15. THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE SEEKS EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARAB LE COMPANIES IS ON THE GROUND THAT (I) THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR TO THAT OF SWD SERVICE PROV IDER AND THAT IT DEVELOPS SOFTWARE PRODUCTS ; (II) SEGME NTAL INFORMATION OF VARIOUS SEGMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE; (III) SCALE OF OPERATION AND PRESENCE OF INTANGIBLES, BRA ND ETC. 16. AS FAR AS FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY OF THIS COMP ANY IS CONCERNED, THIS COMPANY ALSO RENDERS SWD SERVICE S IN THREE CLUSTERS, IN THE FORM OF SERVICE CLUSTER F OR BANKING, FINANCIAL SERVICES, INSURANCE, MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT AND TRAVEL & LOGISTICS), INDUSTRIAL C LUSTER COMPRISING OF ALL MANUFACTURING SECTORS, TELECOM CL USTER RELATING TO PRODUCT ENGINEERING SERVICES. AS RIGHTL Y HELD BY THE DRP ALL THE ABOVE ACTIVITIES ARE SWD SERVICE S. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINLY CATERS TO SWD SERVICES IN BANKING INDUSTRY CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO HOLD IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 6 OF 13 THAT THIS COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT FUNCTION ALLY COMPARABLE. THE DIFFERENCE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSES SEE ARE NOT MATERIAL DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF RULE 10B(2 ) OF THE RULES. 17. AS FAR AS THE OBJECTION THAT THIS COMPANY APART FROM RENDERING SWD SERVICES IS ALSO ENGAGED IN DEVELOPIN G ITS OWN SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, THE TPO HAS BROUGHT OUT IN HIS ORDER THAT THE PRODUCTS DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE PLATFORMS USED BY THIS COMPANY TO ENABLE DESIGN AND DEVELOPING SOFTWARE FOR USE BY A CUSTOMER IN PARTICULAR INDUSTRY. FOR E.G., THE PRODUCT UNITRAX IS A SOFTWARE THAT ENABLES RECORDING KEEPING ENABLING FU ND AND INSURANCE COMPANIES TO MANAGE THE ADMINISTRATIO N OF THEIR WEALTH MANAGEMENT. BASED ON THIS SOFTWARE THE ASSESSEE DESIGNS SOFTWARE FOR SPECIFIC NEEDS OF A CUSTOMER. NO PRODUCT IS SOLD OFF THE SHELF BY THE COMPANY. HENCE THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HIS COMPANY IS A SOFTWARE PRODUCT COMPANY WAS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE TPO/DRP TO BE NOT VALID. 18. THE OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO ABSENCE OF SEGMENTAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN MET BY THE TPO BY POINTING OUT THAT THE WHOLE SEGMENT OF SWD SERVICES WAS CONSIDERED FOR COMPARABILITY. THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS NOT SPECIFIC AND IS VAGU E AND IS ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT THIS COMPANY OPERATES IN THREE SEGMENTS. THE TPO HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 7 OF 13 ONLY ONE SEGMENT AND HENCE THIS OBJECTION IN OUR VI EW WAS RIGHTLY DISREGARDED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 19. AS FAR AS THE OBJECTIONS REGARDING PRESENCE OF INTANGIBLES, IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TPO T HAT THE INTANGIBLES ARE NOTHING BUT OPERATING SYSTEMS, OFFICE TOOLS, DEVELOPMENT TOOLS, TESTING TOOLS ETC. , THAT ARE USED IN THE PROCESS OF RENDERING SWD SERVICES B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY NOT COMPARAB LE WITH THE ASSESSEE. AS FAR AS THE OBJECTION REGARDIN G PRESENCE OF BRAND VALUE IS CONCERNED, IT HAS BEEN H ELD BY THE TPO THAT THERE IS NO INTANGIBLE IN THE FORM OF BRAND OWNED BY THIS COMPANY. THE SCALE OF OPERATION S OF THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO HOLD THAT TH IS COMPANY IS NOT COMPARABLE WHEN FUNCTIONALLY IT IS FOUND TO BE COMPARABLE. 20. NONE OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE MEET THE CRITERIA FOR EXCLUDING THIS COMPANY IN TER MS OF COMPARABILITY CRITERIA LAID DOWN IN RULE 10B(2) OF THE RULES. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 21. 21. 21. 21.PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD.: PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD.: PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD.: PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD.: THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXCLUDING THIS COMPANY FROM THE LI ST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES IS ON THE GROUND THAT THIS COMPANY IS ALSO ENGAGED IN MAKING SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND IS NOT ONLY IN PROVIDING SWD SERVICES AND THAT THE IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 8 OF 13 SEGMENTAL DETAILS OF REVENUE FROM SALE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND REVENUE FROM RENDERING SWD SERVICES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. THIS OBJECTION IS EXAMINED IN TH E LIGHT OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY FOR 2013 WHICH IS AT PAGES 648 TO 841 OF VOLUME-III PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR POINTED OUT THAT EVEN IN THE ANNUAL REPORT THIS COMPANY IS STATED TO BE IN T HE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING SOFTWARE PRODUCTS. THE REFERENCE BY THE LEARNED AR IS TO THE CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS, I.E., INCLUSIVE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE GROUP (AE COMPANIES). THE UNCONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS OF THIS COMPANY IS AT PAGE 787 OF VOLUME-III PAPER BOOK FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS AT PA GE- 793 OF VOLUME-III PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. INCOME FROM OPERATION IS RS.9967.53 MILLION. NOTE 2 1 TO THE NOTE ON ACCOUNTS GIVES THE BREAK OF THIS REV ENUE WHICH IS AT PAGE- 814 AND IT IS FULLY FROM PROVIDIN G SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THIS REVENUE HAS BEE N COMPARED WITH COSTS AND THE OP/TC OF THIS COMPANY ARRIVED AT BY THE TPO. NOTE 26 TO THE NOTES ON ACCOUNTS GIVES THE SEGMENTAL BREAK-UP AND THE SEGMENTS ARE ALL SOFTWARE SERVICES SEGMENT AND THER E IS NO PRODUCT SEGMENT AT ALL. THE LEARNED AR PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISIONS WHERE THIS COMPANY WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. THE SE DECISIONS DO NOT RELATE TO AY 13-14. WE CAN THEREFO RE SAFELY PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT THOSE DECISIONS AR E RENDERED ON THEIR FACTS PREVAILING IN THE RELEVANT AY. AS IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 9 OF 13 FAR AS THE PRESENT AY 13-14 IS CONCERNED, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS A SOFTWARE PRODUCT COMPANY IS HEL D TO BE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND IS REJECTED. NO OTHER ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED FOR EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THIS COMPANY IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 10. WE NOTICE THAT IN BOTH THE DECISIONS RENDER ED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCHES, THE TURNOVER FILTER WAS NOT APPLI ED. ADMITTEDLY THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS RS.13.46 C RORES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHILE THE TURNOVER OF THE ABOVE SAID TWO COMPARABLE COMPANIES WAS RS. 3609.32 CRORES AND RS.996.75 CRORES RESPECTIVELY. 11. THOUGH THE LD D.R CONTENDED THAT THE TURNOV ER FILTER CANNOT BE A CRITERIA FOR EXCLUSION OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES , YET WE NOTICE THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL ARE CONSIS TENTLY HOLDING THAT TURNOVER FILTER IS A RELEVANT CRITERIA. IN THE CASE OF NEILSEN SPORTS INDIA P LTD (SUPRA), THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY OTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCHES, HA S APPLIED THE TURNOVER FILTER FOR EXAMINING THE COMPARABILITY OF COMPANIES. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- 7. BEFORE US, THE LD AR SOUGHT EXCLUSION OF 2 COMPANIES VIZ., M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD., AND TCS-E- IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 10 OF 13 SERVE LTD., ON THE GROUND THAT THE TURNOVER OF BOTH THESE COMPANIES ARE MORE THAN 200 CORES WHILE THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ONLY 20.23 CRORES. BY PLACING RELIANCE RENDERED IN THE CASE OF NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES IT(TP)A NO.101/BANG/2016, MORE PARTICULARLY PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE ORDER THEREOF, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT HIGH TURNOVER COMPANIES CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THE LOW TURNOVER COMPANIES. 8. THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD DRP HAS CONFIRMED INCLUSION OF UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LTD., AND BNR UDYOG LTD. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MOBILITY INFOTECH INDIA PVT. LTD., (2018) 97 TAXMANN.COM 2 HAS RESTORED BOTH THESE COMPARABLE COMPANIES TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR EXAMINING THE SAME AFRESH BY DULY CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE COMPANY. 9. THE LD DR ON THE CONTRARY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS 20.43 CRORES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE TURNOVER OF INFOSYS BPO LTD., FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 1312.41 CRORES AND THE TURNOVER OF TCS-E- SERVE LTD., WAS 1578.40 CRORES. THE CO-ORDINATE IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 11 OF 13 BENCH IN THE CASE OF NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GENISYS INTEGRATING SYSTEMS IN IT(TP)A NO.1231/BANG/2010 IS GOOD LAW. IN THE CASE OF GENISYS INTEGRATING SYSTEMS (SUPRA) A GUIDELINE IN THE MATTER OF TURNOVER FILTER WAS SUGGESTED AND THE CATEGORIZATION OF SOFTWARE COMPANIES IN THE DUN AND BRAD STREET STUDY TO BE ADOPTED AS THE METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION BY SIZE. ACCORDING TO THIS STUDY, 3 CATEGORIES OF FIRMS ARE IDENTIFIED I.E SMA LL WITH TURNOVER LESS THAN 200 CORES, MEDIUM WITH TURNOVER OF 200 TO 2000 CRORES AND LARGE WITH TURNOVER GREATER THAN 2000 CRORES. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT SMALL COMPANIES CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH LARGE COMPANIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HEREIN BEING A SMALL COMPANY CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH LARGE COMPANIES. ACCORDINGLY WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO EXCLUDE BOTH THE COMPANIES ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER CRITERIA. 12. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL FA LL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF COMPANIES HAVING TURNOVER OF 1 200 CRORES, WHI LE THE TWO COMPARABLE COMPANIES REFERRED ABOVE DO NOT FALL UND ER THE ABOVE SAID CATEGORY. ACCORDINGLY, BY FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF GENISYS INTEGR ATING SYSTEMS (IT(TP)A NO.1231/BANG/2010, WE DIRECT THE AO/TPO TO EXCLUDE BOTH M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD AND M/S PERSI STENT SYSTEMS LTD. IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 12 OF 13 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/ - (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. /VMS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT (S) / CROSS OBJECTOR(S) 2. RESPONDENT(S) 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE IT(TP)A NO.2497 /BANG/2017 PAGE 13 OF 13 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. . 14. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED