Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8652 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
10-02-2016
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
07-01-2016
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
04-04-2013
Judgement Text
IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 1 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T(TP).A NO.470/BANG/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11(4), BANGALORE ..APPELLANT V. M/S. IGS IMAGING SERVICES (I) P. LTD, (NOW INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD) 30, INDECOMM HOUSE, LASKAR, HOSUR ROAD, AUDUGODI, BANGALORE 560 030 ..RESPONDENT PAN : AABCI2902H CROSS OBJECTION NO.150/BANG/2015 (IN I.T(TP).A NO.470/BANG/2013) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. K. R. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI. G. R. REDDY, CIT DR-I HEARD ON : 07.01.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 10 .02.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE R EVENUE AND ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DT. 28.01.2013 OF CIT (A)- IV, BANGALORE. IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 2 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 02. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A PROVIDER OF I TES SERVICES AND ALSO BPO SERVICES, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,77,01,140/-. SINCE VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONA L TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDED RS.15 CRORES, REFERENCE WA S MADE TO THE TPO FOR EVALUATING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE AS SESSEE. 03. INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS AE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR WERE AS UNDER : 04. FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURIN G THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH NON-AES WERE AS UNDER : 05. TPO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE TP STUDY FILED BY A SSESSEE IN WHICH IT ADOPTED TNMM FOR JUSTIFYING ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANS ACTIONS WITH ITS AE, IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 3 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 REJECTED SOME OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED SOME OF HIS OWN RELYING ON THE CAPITALINE AND PROWESS DATA BASE. FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO AND I TS AVERAGE PLI READ AS UNDER : 06. ON THE ABOVE PLI, TPO MADE A NEGATIVE WORKING C APITAL ADJUSTMENT OF .94% ADOPTING THE FORMULA GIVEN IN OECD GUIDELIN ES, 2009. WHILE IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 4 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 MAKING THIS WORK OUT, AVERAGE PLR ADOPTED BY SBI WA S CONSIDERED. THEREAFTER HE COMPUTED THE SHORTFALL U/S.92CA AS UN DER : 07. ASSESSMENT WAS THEREAFTER COMPLETED BY THE AO M AKING AN ADDITION OF RS.5,29,68,672/- IN SO FAR AS INTERNATIONAL TRAN SACTIONS WITH AES WERE CONCERNED. 08. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT (A). IN THE FIRST PLACE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE FIGURE OF COST ADOPTED BY THE TPO WHILE WORKING OUT THE SHORTFALL UNDER SECTION 92CA OF THE ACT. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, COST CONSIDERED BY THE TPO WAS THE AGGRE GATE COST OF BOTHINTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND DOMESTIC TRANSAC TIONS AS WELL. THUS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE ADJUSTMENT U/S.92CA OF TH E ACT WAS MADE BY THE TPO ON A WRONG FIGURE RESULTING IN EXCESS SHORTFALL BEING WORKED OUT. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, ACTUAL COST IN RELATION TO THE BP O ACCOUNT CAME TO RS.36,03,66,273/- RESULTING IN OPERATIVE PROFIT OF RS.5,98,65,468/- AND A IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 5 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 PLI OF 16.61%. AS PER THE ASSESSEE IT HAD A DOMEST IC SEGMENT SELLING COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AND SUCH SEGMENT WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE ITES SERVICES RENDERED BY IT TO ITS AE ABROAD. ASS ESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT TO THE CIT (A) THAT IT HAD MAINTAINED SEPARATE SEGMENT AL PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR EACH OF THESE SEGMENTS AND HAD DULY REP ORTED IT IN ITS TP DOCUMENTS. AS PER THE ASSESSEE ADJUSTMENTS FOR TP SHOULD BE CONFINED ONLY TO THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WIT H THE AES. 09. APART FROM THE ABOVE, ASSESSEE ALSO OBJECTED TO CERTAIN FILTERS BEING ADOPTED BY THE TPO AND CERTAIN FILTERS APPLICABLE B EING NOT APPLIED OR BEING WRONGLY APPLIED AS ENUMERATED HEREUNDER : I) EXPORT SALES FILTER OF 75% II) NON-APPLICATION OF TURNOVER AND ABNORMAL PROFITS FI LTER III) NON-APPLICATION OF FLUCTUATING PROFITS FILTER IV) APPLYING RPT FILTER AT 25% V) NON-APPLYING OF KNOWLEDGE PROCESS OUT SOURCING FILT ER VI) NON-APPLICATION OF EXTRA ORDINARY EVENTS FILTER AND VII) IMPROPER APPLICATION OF FUNCTIONAL PROFILE FILTER 10. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE TPO'S ORDER HELD THAT INCORRECT SEGMENTAL DATA WAS ADOPTED BY THE AO FOR IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 6 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 WORKING OUT THE ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDED BY HIM U/S.9 2C OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE CIT (A), ACTUAL EXPENDITURE IN THE ITES SEGMENT FOR TRANSACTIONS WITH AE WAS ONLY RS.36,03,66,273/- AND THIS WAS DULY REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ATTACHMENT 1A TO AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 56F PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 16D FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/ S.10A OF THE ACT. HE THEREFORE DIRECTED THE TPO TO VERIFY THE FIGURES OF EXPENDITURE RELATING TO ITES SEGMENT AND RECOMMENDED THE ADJUSTMENT ONLY TO THAT SEGMENT. 11. VIS-A-VIS ADOPTION OF EXPORT SALES FILTER AT 75 %, CIT (A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAID FILTER WAS CORRECTLY ADOPTED BY THE TPO AND THE EXCLUSION OF TWO COMPANIES NAMELY M/S. MCS LTD, AND M/S. SPARSH BPO SERVICES LTD, ON APPLICATION OF THE SAID FILTER WAS JUSTIFIED. 12. WITH REGARD TO THE TURNOVER AND ABNORMAL PROFIT S FILTER, TPO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT TURNOVER FILTER HAD TO BE APPLIED BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF GENISYS INTEGRATING SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, V. DCIT [ 53 SOT 159]. 13. CIT (A) ALSO HELD THAT COMPANIES WITH ABNORMAL LOSSES HAD TO BE EXCLUDED FROM COMPARISON SINCE ACCORDING TO HIM, IN CLUSION OF SUCH COMPANIES WOULD ERODE PROPER COMPARABILITY. BY VIR TUE OF THIS DIRECTION, IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 7 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES GOT TECHNICALLY EXCLUDED FR OM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO : HOWEVER, CIT (A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE'S CONT ENTION THAT COMPANIES WITH FLUCTUATING PROFITS HAD TO BE EXCLUDED, NOT IT S CONTENTION THAT ADOPTION OF RPT FILTER AT 25% WAS INCORRECT. 14. WITH REGARD TO ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT COMPA NIES HAVING EXTRA ORDINARY EVENTS WHICH HAD INFLUENCED ITS REVENUES D URING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WERE TO BE EXCLUDED, CIT (A) WAS OF T HE OPINION THAT M/S. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD, WOULD GO OUT OF THE LIST OF COMPARABLES ON ACCOUNT OF THIS. ACCORDING TO HIM M/S. ACCENTIA TE CHNOLOGIES LTD, NOT ONLY FAILED TO PROVIDE SEGMENTAL DATA IN RELATION TO ITS ITES SEGMENT IN ITS PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS, BUT HAD IN ITS RELEVANT PREVIOU S YEAR ACQUIRED ONE INDIAN COMPANY AND THREE FOREIGN COMPANIES. BY ACC EPTING THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF M/S. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 8 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 LTD, FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 15. VIS-A-VIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXCLUD ING THOSE COMPANIES HAVING DIFFERENT FUNCTIONAL PROFILES CIT (A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT M/S. ACROPETAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, M/S. ASIT C. MEHTA FINA NCIAL SERVICES LTD, M/S. CALIBER POINT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD, M/S. CRO SS DOMAIN SOLUTIONS P. LTD, M/S. DATAMATICS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, AND M/ S. SPANCO LTD, WERE NOT HAVING ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE FUNCTIONALLY DIFFE RENT FROM THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THUS UPHELD THE ORDER OF ITO IN RESPE CT OF THE COMPARABILITY OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES WERE CONCERNED. HOWEVER, HE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT M/S. GENESYS INTERN ATIONAL CORPORATION LTD, WAS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE ASSESS EE, SINCE IT PERFORMED R & D ACTIVITIES TO DEVELOP PROPRIETORY PRODUCTS AND AL SO OWNED INTANGIBLES. 16. CIT (A) ALSO REJECTED THE GENERAL CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT COMPANIES WHICH WERE INVOLVED IN KNOWLEDGE PROCESS OUTSOURCING, EVENTHOUGH IT FELL WITHIN THE ITES SEGMENT HAD TO B E EXCLUDED FROM THE COMPARISON. 18. NOW BEFORE US GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE VIS- A-VIS THE TP ISSUE READ AS UNDER : IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 9 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 18. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT GROUND 1 IS GENERAL IN NATU RE. IN ITS GROUND 2, REVENUE IS ASSAILING APPLICATION OF TURNOVER AND AB NORMAL PROFITS FILTER. 19. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT TURNOVER CANNOT BE A PROP ER CRITERIA FOR EXCLUDING COMPANIES FROM COMPARABILITY STUDY. RELI ANCE WAS PLACED ON IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 10 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 CAPITAL IQ INFORMATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD V. AC IT AND VICE VERSA [ITA.124/HYD/2014 & ITR 170/HYD/2014, DT.31.07.2014 ] OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE J UDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CRYSCAPITAL INVESTM ENT ADVISORS INDIA P. LTD V. DCIT [ITA NO.417 OF 2014, DT.27.04.2015]. 20. IN SO FAR AS APPLICATION OF ABNORMAL PROFITS FI LTER WAS CONCERNED, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ABNORMAL PROFITS / LOSS BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE A REASON FOR TAKING OUT A COMPANY FROM THE COMPARABILITY STU DY IF IT QUALIFIES OTHERWISE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE SPECIAL BENC H DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICE CENTR ES (I) P. LTD, V. ACIT [ITA.7466/MUM/2012, DT.07.03.2014]. 21. IN REPLY LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS AGAINST THE J UDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CRYSCAPITAL INVESTM ENT ADVISORS INDIA P. LTD (SUPRA), HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PENTAIR WATER INDIA P. LTD. [TAX APPEAL NO.18 OF 2015, DT.1 6.09.2015], HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT TURNOVER IS A RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR CHOOS ING A COMPANY AS COMPARABLE FOR TP STUDY. IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 11 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 22. LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF EXTRA ORDINA RY PROFITS / LOSS MIGHT NOT BE A REASON FOR EXCLUSION OF COMPANIES FROM A L IST OF COMPARABLES, THOSE COMPANIES WHICH WOULD COME INTO THE LIST IF T HE SAID FILTER IS APPLIED, WOULD STILL GO OUT BY APPLICATION OF FUNCTIONAL FI LTER. COMPANIES WHICH HAD EXTRA ORDINARY LOSS / PROFITS WHICH WERE EXCLUDED B Y THE CIT (A) WERE M/S. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD, M/S. ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES LTD, M/S. ADITYA BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LTD (SEG), M/S. CORAL HUBS L TD, M/S. ECLERX SERVICES LTD, M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD, M/S. JINDAL INT ELLICOM P. LTD & M/S. MOLDTEK TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ACCORDING TO HIM OUT OF THESE, M/S. CORAL HUBS LTD, M/S. ECLERX SERVICES LTD, M/S. MOLDTEK T ECHNOLOGIES LTD, AND M/S. WIPRO LTD (SEG) HAD FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT PRO FILE TO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INFOSYS BP O AND WIPRO LTD, (SEG), IN ADDITION TO THEIR COMPATIBILITY DUE TO HUGE TURN OVER, WOULD GO OUT ON APPLICATION OF FUNCTIONAL FILTER AS WELL. 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN SO FAR AS APPLICATION OF TURNOVER FILTER IS CONCERNED, BY VIRTUE OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN PENTAIR WATER INDIA P. LTD, (SUPR A), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS A VALID CRITERIA THAT COULD BE ADOPTED F OR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION OF COMPANIES IN A COMPARABILITY STUDY. HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 12 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 FOLLOWED EARLIER DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD [93 DTR 375]. NO DOUBT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CRYSCAPITAL INVESTMENT AD VISORS INDIA P. LTD (SUPRA) HAD TAKEN A DIFFERENT LINE OF THINKING THAT EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH PROFIT MARGINS OR FLUCTUATING PROFITS MARGIN OR TURNOVER W OULD BY ITSELF MAY NOT BE A REASON FOR EXCLUSION. HOWEVER IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PENTAIR WATER INDIA P. LT D, (SUPRA) AND ALSO THAT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AGNITY INDI A TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD (SUPRA) WE ARE INCLINED TO GO BY THE DECISION OF TH E COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD, (SUP RA). THUS EXCLUSION OF INFOSYS BPO LTD, WHICH HAD A TURNOVER OF RS.855 CR ORES AND M/S. WIPRO LTD (SEG) WHICH HAD A TURNOVER OF RS.1,157 CRORES, BY THE CIT (A) CANNOT BE FAULTED. 24. HOWEVER, APPLICATION OF ABNORMAL LOSS / PROFITS FILTER MADE BY THE CIT (A) IN OUR OPINION FALLS FOUL OF THE SPECIAL BE NCH DECISION IN MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICE CENTRES (I) P. LTD (SUPRA). SPECIAL BENCH OBSERVED THAT INDIAN TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS HAD DEVIATED IN CERTAIN ASPECTS FROM OECD GUIDELINES. OECD GUIDELINES PROVIDED FOR INTE R QUARTILE RANGE OF BENCH MARKING RESULTS WHICH BY ITSELF EXCLUDED OUTL IERS. AS AGAINST THIS, IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 13 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 INDIAN REGULATIONS REQUIRE USING ARITHMETIC MEAN. SPECIAL BENCH OBSERVED THAT POTENTIAL COMPARABLES EARNING ABNORMALLY HIGH PROFIT MARGINS COULD AT THE BEST TRIGGER FURTHER INVESTIGATION BUT WOULD N OT PER SE BE A REASON FOR EXCLUSION. STUDY HAS TO BE MADE TO ASCERTAIN WHETH ER HIGH PROFITS EARNED OR LOSSES SUFFERED WERE DUE TO CERTAIN ABNORMAL CONDIT IONAL WHICH APPLIED TO SUCH COMPARABLES WHETHER AND SUCH ABNORMAL CONDITIO NS WERE PRESENT ABSENT IN THE CASE OF THE TESTED PARTY. OR IN OTHE R WORDS IN SUCH CASES, IT IS AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT THAT A FAR ANALYSIS IS CAR EFULLY DONE. CIT (A) HAD DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF M/S. ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES LTD, M/S. ADITYA BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LTD, M/S. CORAL HUB LTD, M/S. ECLE RX SERVICES LTD, M/S. JINDAL INTELLICOM P. LTD AND M/S. MOLDTEK TECHNOLOG IES LTD, PROBABLY ADOPTING THE YARD STICK OF EXTRA ORDINARY RESULTS. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH MENTIONED SUPRA, IN OUR OPINION THIS WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER OUT OF THESE COMPANIES ASSESSEE STATES THAT M/S. CORAL HUB LTD, M/S. ECLERX SERVICES LTD, AND M/S. MOLDTEK TECHNOLO GIES LTD, WERE FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE TAKEN UP BY US WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SO FAR AS OTHER COMPANIES NAMELY, M/S. ALLSEC TE CHNOLOGIES LTD, M/S. ADITYA BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LTD AND M/S. JINDAL INTELLICOM P. LTD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE TPO. TPO IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 14 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 HAS TO VERIFY WHETHER THESE COMPANIES WERE FUNCTION ALLY COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER LOSSES SUFFERED WERE DUE T O ANY ABNORMAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS WHICH WERE NOT THERE FOR THE AS SESSEE. HE SHALL DECIDE ON THE COMPARABILITY OF THESE CASES AFRESH. GROUND .2 OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 25. VIS-A-VIS GROUND.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE, LD. D R HAD ARGUED THAT EXCLUSION OF THE M/S. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD, WA S INAPPROPRIATE. WE FIND THAT LD. AR HAS PLACED BEFORE US A DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SYMPHONY MARKETING SOLUTIONS INDIA P. L TD, [IT(TP)A.1316/BANG/2012, DT.14.08.2013]. SAID COMP ANY WAS ALSO PROVIDING ITES SERVICES TO ITS AE ABROAD AND THE LI ST OF COMPARABLES CONSIDERED BY THE TPO FOR ANALYSING THE VALUE OF IN TERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ALSO INCLUDED M/S. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS ALSO FOR THE VERY SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREF ORE IN OUR OPINION THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL MENTIONED SUPRA WOULD APPL Y HERE AS WELL. IN RELATION TO M/S. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER AT PARA 10 AND 11 OF THE ORDER DT.14.08.2013 AS UNDER : 10. THIS WAS CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE BY THE TPO AND LISTED AT SL.NO.1 OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE T PO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THERE IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 15 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 ARE EXTRA ORDINARY EVENTS THAT OCCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN THIS COMPANY. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAW TO THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 WHEREIN THE FACT THAT THIS COMPANY HAD ACQUIRED THUNGA SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., GSR PHYSICI ANS BILLING SERVICES INC., GSR SYSTEMS INC. AND DENMED INC. IS MENTIONED. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD ITAT BENCH IN THE CASE OF CAPITAL IQ INFORMATION SY STEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. V. DCIT [ 2013] 32 TAXMAN.COM 21 (HYD. TR IB). IN THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL HAD TO DEAL WITH A CASE OF DETERMINATION OF ALP IN THE CAS E OF AN ASSESSEE WHO WAS PROVIDING ITES BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES FO R THE A.Y. 2007-08. THE TPO HAD CONSIDERED ACCENTIA TECHNOLOG IES LTD. AS A COMPARABLE. THE DRP HOWEVER HELD THAT THE SAID C OMPANY CANNOT BE COMPARED AS A COMPARABLE OWING TO EXTRA O RDINARY EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. TH E TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE DRP OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- I. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 10. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS CO MPANY CANNOT BE TREATED AS A COMPARABLE BECAUSE OF UNCOMPARABLE FINANCIAL RESULTS ARISING OUT OF AMALGAMATION IN THE COMPANY. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE DRP F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. IT IS SEEN THA T THE DRP WHILE CONSIDERING SIMILAR OBJECTION PLACED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER COMPANY, VIZ. MOLD TEK TECHNOLOGIES LTD., I N THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 , HAS OBSERVED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER- '17.5. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, THE DIRECTOR'S REP ORT OF THE COMPANY FOR THE FY 2007-08 REVEALED THE MERGER AND THE DEME RGER. A COMPANY KNOWN AS TECHMEN TOOLS PVT. LTD. HAD AMALGA MATED WITH MOLD-TEK TECHNOLOGIES LTD. WITH EFFECT FORM 1ST OCT OBER, 2006. THERE WAS A DE-MERGER OF PLASTIC DIVISION OF THE COMPANY AND THE RESULTING COMPANY IS KNOWN AS MOLDTEK PLASTICS LIMITED. THE D E-MERGER FROM THE MOLDTEK TECHNOLOGIES TOOK PLACE WITH EFFECT FRO M 1ST APRIL, 2007. THE MERGER AND THE DE-MERGER NEEDED THE APPROVAL OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ALSO THE APPROVAL OF THE SHAREHOLDERS. THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY GAVE APPROVAL FOR THE IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 16 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 MERGER AND THE DE-MERGER ON 25.01.2008 AND THE HON' BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HAD APPROVED THE MERGER AND DE-ME RGER ON 25TH JULY, 2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ACCOUNTS OF MOLDTEK T ECHNOLOGIES FOR FY 2007-08 WERE REVISED. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ANNUAL REPORT IT IS NOTICED THAT TECKMEN TOOLS PVT. LTD. AND THE PLASTI C DIVISION OF THE COMPANY WERE DEMERGED AND THE RESULTING COMPANY WAS NAMED AS MOLDTEK PLASTICS LTD. THE KPO BUSINESS REMAINED WIT H THE COMPANY. A PERUSAL OF THE ANNUAL REPORT REVEALED THAT TO GIV E EFFECT TO THE MERGER AND DEMERGER, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE REVISED AND RESTATED AFTER SIX MONTHS FORM THE END OF THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 31.3. 2008. THE ASSESSEE FILED FORM NO.21 UNDER THE COMPA NIES ACT WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ON 26TH AUGUST, 2008. TH US THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SCHEME OF MERGER AND DEMERGER WAS 26TH AUGUST, 2008. THE ANNUAL REPORT SUPPORTED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THERE WERE MERGER AND DEMERGER IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND IT WAS AN EXCEPTIONAL YEAR OF PERFORMANCE AS FINANCIAL STATEM ENTS WERE REVISED BY THIS COMPANY MUCH AFTER THE CLOSURE OF THE PREVI OUS YEAR. THE PANEL AGREES WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT IT IS AN EXCEPTIONAL YEAR HAVING SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE P ROFITABILITY ARISING OUT OF MERGER AND DEMERGER.' 11. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER, WE ALSO AGR EE WITH THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE DRP THAT EXTRA-ORDINARY E VENT LIKE MERGER AND DE-MERGER WILL HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE PROFITABIL ITY OF THE COMPANY IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH EVENT TAKES PLA CE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN CASE OF THE AFOR ESAID COMPANY, THERE IS AMALGAMATION IN DECEMBER, 2006, WHICH HAS IMPACTED THE FINANCIAL RESULT. THIS FACT HAS TO BE VERIFIED BY T HE TPO. IF IT IS FOUND UPON SUCH VERIFICATION THAT THE AMALGAMATION IN FAC T AHS TAKEN PLACE, THEN THE AFORESAID COMPARABLE HAS TO BE EXCLUDED. 11.WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE ITAT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. IT IS CLEAR THAT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THERE WERE EXTRA ORDINARY EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THIS COMPANY WHICH WARRANTS EXCLUSION OF THIS CO MPANY AS A IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 17 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 COMPARABLE. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THIS COMPANY CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT CIT (A) WAS JU STIFIED IN DIRECTION EXCLUSION OF M/S. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD, 26. VIDE GROUND 4, REVENUE IS ASSAILING EXCLUSION OF GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD, FROM THE LIST OF COM PARABLES. WE FIND THAT THE SAID COMPANY WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNA L IN THE DECISION OF M/S. SYMPHONY MARKETING SOLUTIONS INDIA P. LTD (SU PRA). IN RELATION TO GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD,IT WAS HELD A S UNDER AT PARA 22 AND 23 OF THE ORDER : 22. THIS COMPANY IS LISTED AT SL. NO.12 IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE TPO. AS FAR AS THIS COMPA NY IS CONCERNED, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THIS COMPANY IS FUNCTIONALLY NOT COMPARABLE AND THAT IT HAS A DI FFERENT EMPLOYEE SKILL SET AND THAT THIS COMPANY PERFORMS R &D SERVICES AND ALSO OWNS INTANGIBLES. THIS COMPANY IS A GEOSP ATIAL SERVICES CONTENT PROVIDER SPECIALISING IN LAND BASED TECHNOL OGIES. FROM THE NOTES TO ACCOUNTS OF THIS COMPANY, IT IS SEEN T HAT THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SE RVICES COMPRISING OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY, REMOTE SENSING CARTOG RAPHY, DATA CONVERSION RELATED COMPUTED BASED SERVICES AND OTHE R RELATED SERVICES. FURTHER THE BUSINESS OF THIS COMPANY REQ UIRES SKILLED MANPOWER AND SCIENTISTS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, ETC. THE ASSESSEE IS A ROUTINE ITES PROVIDER WHO DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH HIG HLY SKILLED EMPLOYEES. BESIDES THE ABOVE, THIS COMPANY ALSO CA RRIES OUT R&D SERVICES AND OWN INTANGIBLES. THE AFORESAID FA CTS, IN OUR IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 18 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 VIEW, WILL TAKE THIS COMPANY OUT OF THE LIST OF COM PARABLES. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESS EE IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN DISREGARDED BY THE TPO BY MERE OBSE RVATION THAT IT CANNOT BE REJECTED ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS INTO DIFFERENT FUNCTIONAL LINE WITHIN ITES. IN THIS REGARD, WE M AY REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF FIRST ADVANTAGE OFFSHORE SERVICES LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN I T WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 39. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSI DERED THEIR RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RA ISED ELABORATE OBJECTIONS TO EACH OF THE COMPARABLES IN GROUP 3 BE FORE THE TPO. THE TPO HAS ALSO REPRODUCED THE SAID OBJECTION IN H IS ORDER PARA 6.5.1. OF PAGE 178 OF HIS ORDER. HE HAS REJECTED TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT EVERY FUNCTION WITHIN BPO SECTOR CAN BE FROM LOW END TO HIGH END AND THE ACTIVITIES OF T HE ASSESSEE SUCH AS ACCOUNTING, WEB MANAGEMENT, NETWORK MANAGEMENT A RE BPO SERVICES USING TECHNOLOGY BUT THESE SERVICES ARE NO T CATEGORIZED AS KPO. HE HELD THAT A CALL CENTRE MAY OFFER SUPPORT SERVICES LIKE TELEMARKETING TO HIGH END SERVICES LIKE TECHNICAL S UPPORT SERVICES, WHERE NOT ONLY THE LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE, SKILL REQUIR ED WOULD BE HIGH, BUT THE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AS WELL WOULD BE HIGH. ACCORDING TO HIM, BACK OFFICE TRANSACTION PROCESS S ERVICES MAY BE AS REMARKABLE AND AS COMPLICATED AS INSURANCE/MARKE T TRANSACTION PROCESSING SERVICES. HE, THEREFORE, REJECTED THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE BPO AS EQUIVALENT TO KPO S ERVICES. 40. WE HAVE TO NOW CONSIDER WHETHER A BPO AND KPO A RE FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR AND ARE COMPARABLE TO EACH OTH ER. BPO IS A SUB-SET OF OUTSCORING AND INVOLVES THE CONTRACTING OF THE OPERATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SPECIFIC BUSINESS FUNCTIONS OR PROCESS TO A THIRD PARTY SERVICES PROVIDER. OFTEN BUSINESS PROC ESSES OUTSOURCING ARE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BASED AND RE FERRED TO AS ITES-BPO. KPO IS ONE OF THE SUB-SEGMENT OF THE BPO INDUSTRY. IT INVOLVES OUTSOURCING OF CORE INFORMATION RELATED BU SINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE COMPETITIVELY IMPORTANT OR FORM AN INTEGR AL PART OF A COMPANYS VALUE CHAIN. IT THUS REQUIRES ADVANCED A NALYTICAL AND TECHNICAL SKILLS AS WELL AS A HIGH DEGREE OF SPECIA LIST EXPERTISE. THE KPO SERVICES INCLUDE ALL KINDS OF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 19 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 GATHERING. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT EVEN THOUGH BO TH BPO AND KPO ARE OFFERING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BASED SERVI CES, THE SKILL AND EXPERTISE AND MAY BE EVEN THE TOOLS REQUIRED AR E DIFFERENT WHICH MAY RESULT IN DIFFERENT ECONOMIC RESULTS OF B OTH THE SEGMENTS. THUS, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT THEY CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH EACH OTHER AND HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 23. IT IS THUS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT AMONG THE ITES COMPANIES THERE IS A HIERARCHY IN TERMS OF SKILL REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SERVICES. IT RANGES FROM PROVI DING ROUTINE SERVICES WHERE NO SKILLS AND REQUIRED AND PROVIDING SERVICES WHERE HIGHLY PROFESSIONALIZED SKILLS ARE REQUIRED. DEPEN DING ON THE SKILLS REQUIRED TO PERFORM ITES THE COMPARABILITY HAS TO B E DONE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A COMPARABLE AND DESERVES TO BE EXCLUDE D FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT CIT (A) WAS JU STIFIED IN DIRECTING EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY AS WELL. 27. COMING TO GROUNDS 5 TO 7 OF THE REVENUE, CRUX O F ITS CONTENTION IS THAT ONCE CERTAIN CRITERIA OR FILTERS ARE APPLIED A FRESH, IT WOULD CHANGE THE MATRIX OF THE COMPARABILITY AND ERODE THE QUALITY O F COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS. IN OUR OPINION EVEN AFTER EXCLUSION OF VARIOUS COMP ANIES DIRECTED BY THE CIT (A), THERE WOULD BE MORE THAN TEN COMPANIES LEF T OUT OF THE TOTAL TWENTY COMPARABLES CONSIDERED BY THE TPO. A REPRES ENTATIVE SAMPLE OF TEN OR MORE COMPANIES CAN IN NO WAY BE CONSIDERED AS A LOW FIGURE SO AS TO IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 20 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 ERODE A COMPARABLE STUDY. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. DR. GROUNDS 5 TO 7 O F THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 28. VIDE ITS GROUNDS 8 TO 10, GRIEVANCE OF THE REVE NUE IS THAT CIT (A) FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. TATA ELXSI LTD, (349 ITR 98), FOR DIRECTING EXCLUSION OF THOSE EXPENDITURE WHICH WERE REDUCED FROM THE EXPORT TURN OVER, ALSO FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION AVAILABL E TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.10A OF THE ACT. NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON WAS SHOWN BY THE REVENUE FOR INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER OF CIT (A) WHO HAD FOLLOWED THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT, WHICH HE WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW. GROU NDS 8 TO 10 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 29. NOW WE TAKE THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE . GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 1.ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE RESPONDENT WISHES TO RELY UPON THE ORDER (DATED 28 JANUARY 201 3) PASSED UNDER SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE HON 'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - IV ('CIT(A)') AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS DISREGARDED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ('LD. AO')/ LEARNED TRANSFER PRIC ING OFFICER ('LD. TPO') WHILE FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITA T. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO I LD. IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 21 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 TPO ERRED IN OBJECTING TO THE EXCLUSION OF CORAL HU BS LIMITED ('CORAL HUBS') BY THE HON'BLE CIT(A). WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE HON'BLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED ON THE GRO UND PERTAINING TO FUNCTIONAL NON- COMPARABILITY AND APPLICATION OF EM PLOYEE COST GREATER THAN 25% FILTER FOR CORAL HUBS. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO I LD. TPO ERRED IN OBJECTING TO THE EXCLUSION OF ECLERX S ERVICES LIMITED ('ECLERX') BY THE HON'BLE CIT(A). WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE GRO UNDS PERTAINING TO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (AMALGAMATION DURING TH E YEAR), APPLICATION OF RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION GREATER TH AN 10% FILTER, ABNORMAL GROWTH IN CAGR AND SIGNIFICANT ADVERTISEME NT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ECLERX. FURTHER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT ECLERX IS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE T O THE RESPONDENT. 2. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD. AO I LD. TPO ERRED IN OBJECTING TO THE EXCLUSION OF INFOSYS BPO LIMITED ('INFOSYS') BY THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND OF SIZE AND TURNOVER OF THE COMPANY. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE GROUND PERT AINING TO OWNERSHIP OF INTANGIBLES (BRAND VALUE) BY THE INFOS YS. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO I LD. TPO ERRED IN OBJECTING TO THE EXCLUSION OF MOLD-TEK TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ('MOLD-TEK') BY THE HON'BLE CIT(A). WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICA TING ON THE GROUNDS PERTAINING TO INCOME EARNED FROM DERIVATIVE TRADING , ABNORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY (DE-MERGER) AND APPLICATION OF THE RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION GREATER THAN 10% FILTER IN CASE OF MOLD-TEK. FURTHE R, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT MOLD-TEK IS FU NCTIONALLY COMPARABLE TO THE RESPONDENT. 3. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO / LD. TPO ERRED IN OBJECTING TO THE EXCLUSION OF WIPRO LI MITED ('WIPRO') BY THE HON'BLE CIT(A), ON THE GROUND OF SIZE AND TURNO VER OF THE COMPANY. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE GROUNDS PERTAINING TO OWNERSHIP OF INTANGIBLES (INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES AND BRAND VALUE) BY THE WI PRO. IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 22 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 4. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO/ LD. TPO ERRED IN OBJECTING TO THE REJECTION OF ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ('ACCENTIA') BY THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ON THE B ASIS THAT THE COMPANY WITNESSED EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS LIKE ACQUISI TIONS AND AMALGAMATIONS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND, THE HON'BLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED ON THE OTHER GROUND PERTAINING TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF SEGMENTAL DATA FOR THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABL ED SERVICES SEGMENT IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ACCE NTIA. 5. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO / LD. TPO ERRED IN OBJECTING TO THE EXCLUSION OF GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LIMITED ('GENESYS') BY THE HON'BLE CIT( A), ON THE BASIS OF FUNCTIONAL NON-COMPARABILITY. THE LD. AO / LD. TPO HAS FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAS BEEN AD DITIONALLY REJECTED ON THE GROUND OF ABNORMAL GROWTH BY THE HON'BLE CIT (A). 30. A READING OF GROUND 1 SHOW THAT ASSESSEE IS SEE KING EXCLUSION OF M/S. CORAL HUB LTD, AND M/S. ECLERX SERVICES LTD, W HICH COME BACK TO THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. IN THE CASE OF M/S. CORAL HUB LTD, ASSESSEE SAYS THAT IT WAS FUNCTIONALLY UNCOMPARABLE AND IN THE CASE OF EC LERX SERVICES LTD, IT SAYS THAT THERE WERE EXTRA-ORDINARY EVENTS DURING T HE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH TOOK IT OUT OF THE REALM OF COMPARABLE. IN T HIS REGARD, LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. SYMPHONY MARKETING SOLUTIONS INDIA P. LTD. 31. AS AGAINST THIS LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT FUNCTIONA L COMPARABILITY WAS IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 23 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 NEVER SEEN BY THE CIT (A) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE IS SUE. SIMILARLY ACCORDING TO HIM, CIT (A) ALSO DID NOT VERIFY THE C OMPARABILITY OF M/S. ECLERX SERVICES LTD, ON THE CRITERIA OF EXTRA ORDIN ARY CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE TO THE SAID COMPANY DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. 32. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN SO FAR AS M/S. CORAL HUB LTD, IS CONCERNED, THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. SYMPHONY SYMPHONY MARKETING SOLUTIONS INDIA P. LTD, (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER AT PARAS 14 TO 17 OF ITS ORDER : 14. THIS COMPANY IS LISTED AT SL.NO.6 OF THE LIST OF CO MPARABLE COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE TPO. AS FAR AS THIS COMPANY IS CON CERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS COMPANY WAS EARLIER KNOWN AS VISHAL INFOR MATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. THE COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPAN Y IN THE CASE OF AN ITES COMPANY BY NAME 24 X 7 CUSTOMER.COM PVT. LT D. WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.227/BANG/2010 AND BY ORDER DATED 09.11.2012 THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THIS COMPAN Y IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH ITES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:- 17.3 VISHAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (VIT) - IN THE CASE OF THIS COMPARABLE, WE FIND THAT THE MUMBAI TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF MEARSK GLOBAL SERVICES (I) PVT LTD IN ITA NO.3774/MUM/2011 BY ORDER DT.9.11.2011 HAS HELD THA T SINCE VISHAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD IS OUTSOURCING MOST OF ITS WORK IT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST WHEREAS TH E ASSESSEE IN THE CITED CASE WAS CARRYING OUT THE WORK BY ITSELF. IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING OUT ITS WORK BY ITSELF WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF VITL, IT IS OUTSOU RCING MOST OF ITS WORK. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION TH AT THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CITED CASE ON T HE ISSUE OF EXCLUDING VITL AS A COMPARABLE SQUARELY APPLIES. TH IS DECISION IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 24 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 WAS FOLLOWED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NETLINX INDIA(P) LTD IN ITA NO.454/BANG/2011 DT.19.10.2012 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT VISHAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A S A COMPARABLE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MEARSK GLOBAL SE RVICES (I) PVT LTD, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO TO EXCL UDE VISHAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. FROM THE LIST OF COMP ARABLES. 15. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT CORAL HUBS LTD. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMP ARABLE. IT MAY ALSO BE RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE TPO IN HIS O RDER HAS OBSERVED THAT THIS COMPANY IS RETAINED AS A COMPARABLE ON TH E BASIS OF DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE TP ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. I N FACT IN A.Y. 2007- 08, THERE WAS NO DETERMINATION OF ALP AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR ANY ORDER BEING PASSED BY THE TPO. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THIS COMPANY ENTERED INTO AN AREA OF BUSINESS KNOWN AS NEW VERTICAL DIGITAL LIBRARY & PRINT ON DEMAND IN F.Y. 2007-08. IN THE CASE OF CAPITAL IQ INFORMATION SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUP RA), THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITES COMPANY CONSIDE RED THE COMPARABLE OF THIS COMPANY AS AN ITES COMPANY AND H ELD AS FOLLOWS:- IV. CORAL HUB LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VISHAL INF ORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD.): 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED FOR THIS COMPANY BEING TAKEN AS COMPARABLE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY IS NOT ONLY FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT, BUT THE BUSINESS MODEL OF THE COMPANY IS ALSO DIFFERENT AS IT SUB-CO NTRACTS MAJORITY OF ITS ITES WORKS TO THIRD PARTY VENDORS A ND HAS ALSO MADE SIGNIFICANT PAYMENTS TO THOSE VENDORS. THE PAY MENTS MADE TO VENDORS TOWARDS THE DATA ENTRY CHARGES ALSO SUPP ORTS THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY OUTSOURCES ITS WORKS. IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE TO THE ITES FUNCTIO NS PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THIS COMPANY IS AC TING AS AGENT ONLY BY OUTSOURCING ITS WORKS TO THE THIRD PARTY VE NDORS. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE DRP IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 , WHEREIN THE DRP, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE AFORE SAID ASPECT, IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 25 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MU MBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT V. MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICE CENTRE (INDIA) (P.) LTD. [2011] 133 ITD 543/16 TAXMANN.COM 47 (MUM.) , A COPY OF WHICH IS SUBMITTED BEFORE US, HAS ALSO DIRECTED FOR THE EXCLUSION OF THE AFORESAID COMPANY SINCE IT HAS OUT SOURCED A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF ITS BUSINESS. 17. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE DRP, IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE, AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE COMPOSITION OF T HE VENDOR PAYMENTS OF CORAL HUB FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, AND THE FACT THAT IT HAS ALSO COMMENCED A NEW LINE OF BUSINESS OF PRI NTING ON DEMAND(POD), WHEREIN IT PRINTS UPON CLIENTS REQUEST , CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS- '18.4. IN VIEW OF THIS MAJOR DIFFERENCE IN FUNCTIO NALITY AND THE BUSINESS MODEL, THIS PANEL IS OF THE VIEW T HAT 'CORAL HUB' IS NOT A SUITABLE COMPARABLE TO THE TAX PAYER AND HENCE NEEDS TO BE DROPPED FORM THE FINAL LIST O F COMPARABLES.' IN CASE OF MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICE CENTRE INDIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA), THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH HAS ALSO DIRECTED FOR EXCLUSI ON OF THE AFORESAID COMPANY, BY OBSERVING IN THE FOLLOWING MA NNER- 'INSOFAR AS THE CASES OF TULSYAN TECHNOLOGIES LIMIT ED AND VISHAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOTICED FROM THEIR ANNUAL ACCOUNTS THAT THESE COMPANIES OUTSOURCED A CONSIDERABLE PORTION O F THEIR BUSINESS. AS THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT ENTIRE OPERATIONS BY ITSELF, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, TH ESE TWO CASES WERE RIGHTLY EXCLUDED.' IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE DRP AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF MAERSK G LOBAL SERVICE CENTRE, (SUPRA), WE ACCEPT THAT THIS COMPAN Y CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE. IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 26 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 16. IT IS ALSO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE EMPLOYEE COST/ OPERATING SALES OF THIS COMPANY IS A MERE 3%, WHEREAS THE THR ESHOLD LIMIT FOR ACCEPTANCE AS A COMPARABLE ON THE BASIS OF EMPLOYEE COST TO SALES SHOULD BE AT LEAST 25%. THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FIRST ADVANTAGE OFFSHORE SERVICES LTD. V. CIT, IT(TP)A NO.1086/BANG/2011, ORDER DATED 30.4.2013, HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING VIEW:- 36. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSI DERED THEIR RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FI ND THAT THIS ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT EMPLOYEE COST FILTER IS TO BE THE SAME EVEN FOR ITES SEGMENT ALSO. THE LEA RNED DRS ARGUMENT THAT THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER IS APPLICABL E ONLY TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SEGMENT AND NOT TO ITES SEGMEN T IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THOUGH IT IS WITHOUT ANY DISPUTE THAT THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT WOULD REQUIRE SKILLED EMPLOYEES AND, TH EREFORE, THE EMPLOYEE COST WOULD DEFINITELY BE MORE THAN 25% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID FILTER IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ITES SEGMENT, WHERE COMPARABLY LESS SKILLED EMPLOYE ES ARE EMPLOYED. IN THE ITES SEGMENT, THE ENTIRE WORK IS TO BE DONE BY THE EMPLOYEES AND, THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE LESS SKILLED COMPARED TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SEGMENT, T HE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WOULD DEFINITELY BE MORE AND THUS THE EMPLOYEE COST WOULD BE HIGH AND THUS APPLICATION OF EMPLOYEE COST FILTER TO THE ITES SECTOR IS ALSO JUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE TPO TO APPLY THE EMPLOYEE COST FILTER TO EXCLUD E COMPANIES WITH EMPLOYEE COST OF LESS THAN 25% FROM THE LIST O F COMPARABLES FOR THE COMPUTATION OF ALP. 17. APPLYING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT CORAL HUBS LTD. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. 33. IN SO FAR AS M/S. ECLERX SERVICES LTD, IS CONCE RNED, IN THE VERY SAME DECISION THIS TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS UNDER AT PARAS 2 0 AND 21 OF ITS ORDER : IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 27 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 20. THIS COMPANY IS LISTED AT SL.NO.11 IN THE LIST OF C OMPARABLE COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE TPO. IT IS THE STAND OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THIS COMPANY OFFERS SOLUTIONS THAT INCLUDE DATA ANA LYTICS, OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, AUDITS AND RECONCILIATION AND THEREFORE HAS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS HIGH END KPO. IN SUPPORT OF THE STAN D OF THE ASSESSEE, EXTRACTS FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY HAV E BEEN POINTED OUT. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN SUBMITTED THAT EXTRA ORDI NARY EVENTS AND PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAIL IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS THIS COMPANY ACQUIRED A UK BASED COMPANY WHICH H AS SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCREASE IN THE CU STOMER AND REVENUE BASE OF THE COMPANY. THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CAPITAL IQ INFORMATION SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAD AN OCCASION TO DEAL WITH COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY IN THE CASE OF A N ITES COMPANY SUCH AS THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLO WS:- 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED FOR THIS COMPANY BE ING TAKEN AS COMPARABLE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS HAVING A SUPERNORMAL PROFIT OF 89%, AND AS SUCH IT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE M/S. TEVA INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). THAT APART, RELYING UPON THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONT ENDED THAT THAT THE CONCERNED COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING KNOWLEDGE PROCESS OUTSOURCING(KPO) SERVICES. 15. ON CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THIS COMPANY, WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE BOTH FOR TH E REASONS THAT IT WAS HAVING SUPERNORMAL PROFIT AND IT IS ENG AGED IN PROVIDING KPO SERVICES, WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM THE NATURE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. 21. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIO N OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH REFERRED TO ABOVE, THIS COMPANY CAN NOT BE REGARDED AS A COMPARABLE FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS FUNCTION ALLY DIFFERENT. IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 28 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT M/S. CORAL HUB LTD, AND M/S. ECLERX SERVICES LTD, HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES FOR REASONS OTHER THAN ABNORMAL LOSSES. DIRECTED A CCORDINGLY. 34. IN RELATION TO GROUND 2, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT M/S. MOLDTEK TECHNOLOGIES LTD, HAD TO BE EXCLUDED SINCE IT HAD I NCOME FROM DERIVATIVE TRADING AND DEMERGER DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 35. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WA S NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CIT (A) AT ALL. 36. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. COMPARABI LITY OF M/S. MOLDTEK TECHNOLOGIES LTD, HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF M/S. SYMPHONY MARKETING SOLUTIONS INDIA P. LTD (SUPRA). COORDINATE BENCH AT PARA 25 HAD HELD AS UNDER : 2. THIS COMPANY IS LISTED AT SL.NO.16 OF THE LIST OF C OMPARABLE COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE TPO. AS FAR AS THIS COMPAN Y IS CONCERNED, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF KNOWLEDGE PROCESS OUTSOURCING AND C ANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THIS COMPANY IS AS FOLLOWS:- AS PER THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE F.Y. 2007-08, THE COMPANY PRIMARILY OPERATES IN TWO BUSINESS SEGMENTS: PLASTIC DIVISION : THE PLASTIC DIVISION IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF TUBE & OILS, PAINTS, PET PRODUCTS, C ONSUMER IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 29 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 PRODUCTS, ETC. THE COMPANY DEMERGED THE SAID SEGME NT EFFECTIVE 1 APRIL, 2007 AND TRANSFERRED THE BUSINESS UNIT TO TH E COMPANY PLASTICS LT. THE EXTRACT FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT CON FIRMS THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAD RESTRUCTURED ITS OPERATIONS RE SULTING IN DEMERGING THE PLASTIC SEGMENT BUSINESS. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) DIVISION : THE IT DIVISION (ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE KPO DIVISION BY THE COMPANY) OF THE COMPANY SPECIALIZES IN PROVIDING STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETA ILING SERVICES WHICH CAN BE CATEGORIZED AS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES. THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE IT DIVISION OF THE COMPANY CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS FALLING WITH THE SC OPE AND AMBIT OF ITES SERVICES. ON THE CONTRARY, THE SAID SERVIC ES WOULD FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ENGINEERING SERVICES. EXCERPTS FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY PAGE 10 OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE FY 2007-08 CON TAINS THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION REGARDING THE KPO DIVISION OF THE COMPANY: THE COMPANY HAS ACHIEVED ABOUT 56.49% GROWTH IN 20 07-08 TO REGISTER A TURNOVER OF RS.17.86 CRORE. THE COMPANY HAVING ESTABLISHED ITS CREDENTIALS IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO US CLIENTS IS DEVISING AGGRESSIVE MARKETING STRATEGY T O ACHIEVE RAPID GROWTH. THIS COMPANY IS ALSO ENGAGED IN PROVIDING A HOST OF ENGINEERING SERVICES LIKE CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERV ICES, MECHANICAL PRODUCT DESIGN, PLANT ENGINEERING, IT SERVICES AND GIS SERVICES. AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, THIS COMPANY IS TO BE CLAS SIFIED AS KPO AND CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE DECI SION OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF FIRST AD VANTAGE OFFSHORE SERVICES LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH WE HAVE REFERR ED TO IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER WILL CLEARLY APPLY TO TH IS COMPANY. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THIS COMPANY TO BE EXCLUDED FROM T HE LIST OF COMPARABLES. IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 30 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT M/S. MOLDTEK TECHNOLOGIES LTD, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A PROPER COMPARABLE. ORDER ED ACCORDINGLY. 37. IN SO FAR AS M/S. INFOSYS BPO IS CONCERNED, GRO UND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS INFRUCTUOUS. IT GETS EXCLUDED BY APPLI CATION OF TURNOVER FILTER. 38. IN ITS GROUND 3, ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED THAT CIT (A) HAD NOT ADJUDICATED THE COMPARABILITY OF M/S. WIPRO LTD (SE G), BUT HAD DIRECTED EXCLUSION BASED ON ITS TURNOVER. SINCE WE HAVE ALR EADY HELD THAT TURNOVER FILTER WAS PROPERLY APPLIED BY THE CIT (A), THIS GR OUND, IN OUR OPINION, IS INFRUCTUOUS. 39. IN RESPECT OF GROUND 4, WE FIND THAT IN RELATIO N TO REVENUE'S APPEAL WE HAVE HELD M/S. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD, WAS RI GHTLY EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES BY THE CIT (A). THEREFORE, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 40. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND 5 OF THE ASSESSEE, WE H AVE ALREADY HELD THAT CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXCLUDING M/S. GENESYS INT ERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD, FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. HENCE GROUND 5 IS ALSO TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS. IT(TP)A.470/BANG/2013 PAGE - 31 CO NO.150/BANG/2015 41. TO SUMMARISE THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (ABRAHAM P GEORG E) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Mehul