M/s Sandvine Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 647/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6951 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: NARENDRA KUMAR J JAIN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A NO.647/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S. SANDVINE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., GROUND FLOOR WING, RMZ ECOWORLD INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., SEZ, DEVARABEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU 560 037. .. APPELLANT PAN : AAMCS 1644M V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR J. JAIN, ADVOCAT E REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR JHA, CIT(DR), ITAT, BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2019 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE DCIT, CIRCLE -11(4), BENGALURU, DATED 30.01.2017, P ASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.144C OF THE ACT, IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIO NS OF THE DRP, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. IT(TP)A NO.647/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 10 2. ASSESSEE IS HUNDRED PERCENT SUBSIDY OF SANDVINE INCORPORATED ULC. THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN RENDERING THE SOFT WARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS ASSESSEE. 3. AS PER TP ORDER DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR (FY) 2012-13 , ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES): INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS VALUE (INR) RENDERING OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 177355334 REIMBURSEMENT 3134 0017 PROVISION OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE 146015317 ADVANCED OR SERVICE TO BE RENDERED 3235 4934 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENS ES 2333 5163 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS SELECTED THE 5 COMPARABLES IN ITS TP STUDY AND HAS WORKED OUT T HE OP/OC MARGINS OF ASSESSEE STOOD AT 8.86% (CONSIDERING FOREIGN EXCHANGE AS NON-OPERATING ITEM ) AS AGAINST 22.63% OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 5. THE TPO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE TP STUDY OF T HE ASSESSEE AND HAS THEREFORE APPLIED VARIOUS FILTER FOR THE PURPOS E OF EXAMINING THE TP STUDY AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF RINGING SUITABLE COMPA RABLE. AFTER ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, TPO FINALISED AFTER TAKING 10 CO MPARABLES.. 6. THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF PROFIT MARGIN OF THESE CO MPANIES AFTER AND BEFORE ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMEN T SELECTED BY TPO WAS AS FOLLOWS:- IT(TP)A NO.647/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 10 SI. NO. NAME OF THE TAX PAYER OP/OC 1 DATAMATICS GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. 14.57 2 GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPN. LTD. 30. 09 3 ICRA TECHNO ANALYTICS LTD. 17.24 4 INFOSYS LTD. 43.10 5 LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. 25.47 6 MINDTREE LTD. 15.01 7 PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. 27.20 8 RS SOFTWARE (INDIA) LTD. 15.34 9 SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 12.15 10 SPRY RESOURCES INDIA PVT. LTD. 26.18 AVERAGE MARKUP 22.6 3% 7. BASED ON THE ABOVE AVERAGE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF PR OFIT MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES, THE TPO COMPUTED THE ALP OF T HE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF RENDERING OF SWD SERVICES BY THE ASS ESSEE TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY. 8. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE TP ORDER, THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE DRP RAISING OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE ADJ USTMENTS PROPOSED IN THE TP ORDER. 9. THE DRP IN ITS FINAL DIRECTION HAD PARTLY GRANTE D THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, THE AO PASSED THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE TP ADJUSTMENT STOOD RE WORKED AT SAME FIGURE AS ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED BY THE TPO. THE AO PASSED A FAIR ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DETERM INATION OF ALP BY THE TPO AS MODIFIED BY THE DRP. THE TP ADJUSTMENT POST THE DRP DIRECTIONS IT(TP)A NO.647/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 10 WAS RE-WORKED AND A FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASS ED WHEREIN THE TOTAL ADJUSTMENT STOOD AT RS. 97,14,556. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION MADE IN THE FAIR ORDE R OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL CHALL ENGING THE ADDITION ON SEVERAL COUNTS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL RESTRICTED HIS ARGUMENTS TO EXCLUSION OF 4 COMPARAB LES OUT OF THE 10 COMPARABLE COMPANIES THAT REMAIN IN THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES AFTER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP VIZ., (A) GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPN. LTD., (B) INFOSYS LTD., (C) LARSEN AND TOUBR O INFOTECH LTD., AND (D) PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. 11. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A BIG CHART CONTAINING ASSESSEES ARGUMEN TS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM REGARDING EXCLUSION OF SOME COMPAR ABLES AND IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF SYNOPSIS OF THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS AND THE BIG CHART IN RESPECT OF INCLUSION / EXCLUSION OF VARIOU S COMPARABLES. 12. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH PASSED IN THE MATTER OF CGI INFORM ATION SYSTEM AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS ACIT320 I TAT 2018. AND SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPARABLE SELECTED BY THE TPO I N THE SAID CASE WERE SAME AS SELECTED BY THE TPO, IN THE PRESENT CASE HE D ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE NOTED FOR COMPARABLES OVER SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CGI CASE (SUPRA) AND THE COORDINATE BENCH AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAD EXCLUDED ALL THESE FOR COMPARABLES FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 13. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE FINAL ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF DRP. IT(TP)A NO.647/BANG/2017 PAGE 5 OF 10 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RE LEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE PARTIES. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE M ATTER OF CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED HAD EXAMINED THE FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY OF THESE COMPARABLES ON THE T OUCHSTONE OF FAR ANALYSIS AND THEREAFTER HAD EXCLUDED THESE COMPARAB LES FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. FOR THE READY REFERENCE WERE REPRODUC ING HEREINBELOW THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED DEALING WITH THE EXCLUS ION OF THESE FOR COMPARABLES TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT: 29. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN T HE CASE OF AGILIS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA), THIS TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE COMPARABILITY OF THE 3 COMP ANIES WHICH THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE FINAL LIST O F COMPARABLE COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE TPO. THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF ME ASSESSEE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF AG ILIS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P.) LTD.(SUPRA), IS IDENTICAL INASMUCH AS THE SAID COMPANY WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN P ROVIDING SWD SERVICES TO ITS AE AND THE TPO HAD CHOSEN SOME COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHICH WERE ALSO CHOSEN BY THE TPO IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPARABILI TY. IN THE AFORESAID DECISION THE TRIBUNAL HELD ON THE COMPARA BILITY OF THE 3 COMPANIES WHICH THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO EXCLUDE AS FO LLOWS: (A) INFOSYS LTD., WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES (P.) LTD. [2013] 36 TAXMANN.COM 289/219 TAXMAN 26 (DELHI) . THE DISCUSSION IS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 4.5 TO 4.7 OF THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THAT INFOSYS LTD. IS A GIANT RISK TAKING COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT AND SALE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND ALSO OWNS INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND THEREFORE NOT COMPARABLE WITH A SO FTWARE IT(TP)A NO.647/BANG/2017 PAGE 6 OF 10 DEVE LOPMENT SERVICE PROVIDER SUCH AS THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE. (B) LARSEN & TOU BRO INFOTECH LTD., WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SAXO INDIA (P.) LTD. V. ASSTT. CIT [2016] 67 TAXMANN.COM 155 (DELHI - TRIB.) . THE DISCUSSION IS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 4.8 TO 4.10 OF THE TRIBUNAL 'S ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT L & T INFOTECH LTD., WAS A SOFTWARE PRODUCT COMPANY AND SEGMENTAL INFORMATION ON SWD SERVICES WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER WAS DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.682/2016. (C) PE RSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD., WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST O F COMPARABLE COMPANIES ON THE GROUND THAT THIS COMPANY WAS A SOFTWARE PRODUCT COMPANY AND SEGMENTAL INFORMATION ON SWD SERVICES WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE TRIBUNAL IN COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION REFERRED TO THE DECISION RENDERED BY ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CASH EDGE INDIA (P.) LTD. V. ITO ITA NO.64/DEL/2015 ORDER DATED 23.9.2015 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAXO INDIA PVT. LTD.(SUPRA ). THE FINDINGS IN THIS REGAR D ARE CON TAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 4.14 TO 4.16 OF ITS ORDER. 30. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL WE HOLD THAT THE AFORESAID 3 COMPANIES BE EXCLUDED FRO M THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARR IVING AT THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR THE PUR POSE OF COMPARISON WITH THE PROFIT MARGINS. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED DR FOR A REMA ND OF THE ISSUE TO THE DRP ON THE GROUND THAT THE DRP HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONS IN ITS DIRECTIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE DRP BAS E NDORSED THE IT(TP)A NO.647/BANG/2017 PAGE 7 OF 10 VIEW OF THE TPO IN ITS DIRECTIONS AND THEREFORE THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE TPO SHOULD BE REGARDED AS THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE DRP. 31. THE LEARNED DR. NEXT SUBMITTED THAT GENESYS I NTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD., SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. THE COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY WITH T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE TPO IN PAGE-11 OF HIS ORD ER. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY IN T HE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR THE REASON THAT THIS COMPA NY IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT AND OWNS INTANGIBLE ASSETS W HICH ARE PECULIAR ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE OWNS SOFTWARE PRODU CTS. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONTAINED IN ITS LET TER DATED 22.12.2015 ADDRESSED TO THE TPO AND IN ANNEXURE-B T O THE SAID LETTER. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE OBJECTION IS AT PAGES 711-713 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSE E THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING GEOGRAPHICAL INFORM ATION SERVICES COMPRISING OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY, REMOTE SENSI NG, CARTOGRAPHY, DATA CONVERSION, STATE OF THE ART TERR ESTRIAL AND 3D GEOCONTENT INCLUDING LOCATION BASED AND OTHER COMPU TER BASED RELATED SERVICES. PAGC-38 OF THE ANNUAL REPORT 2012 CONTAINING THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TPO, ATTENTION OF THE TPO WAS INVITED TO THE DIRECTORS R EPORT TO THE SHAREHOLDERS AT PAGE II OF THE ANNUAL REPORT 2012, WHEREIN THE DIRECTORS HAVE INFORMED THE SHAREHOLDERS THAT THE C OMPANY CONTINUED IN ITS JOURNEY, TO BE INNOVATORS AND LEAD ERS IN THE FIELDS OF LOCATION BASED SERVICES RELATED GEOPLATFORMS AND ADVANCED SURVEY TECHNIQUES. THERE IS NO SEGMENTAL REPORTING BECAUSE IT IS STATED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT THAT THIS COMPANY IS ON LY IN ONE SEGMENT VIZ., GIS BASED SERVICES AND THEREFORE THER E IS NO REQUIREMENT OF SEGMENTAL REPORTING. IT WAS ALSO SUB MITTED THAT THIS COMPANY OWNS SUBSTANTIAL INTANGIBLES EQUIVALEN T TO 10.42% OF ITS TOTAL TURNOVER. 32. THE TPO HOWEVER HAS REGARDED THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY BY OBSERVING THAT THIS COMPANY D EVELOPS SOFTWARE FOR MAPPING AND GEOSPATIAL SERVICES AND OP ERATES A FEW DEVELOPMENT CENTRES IN INDIA. THE COMPANY IS PREDOM INANTLY INTO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THE INTANGIBLES IN T HE POSSESSION OF THE COMPANY ARE ONLY THE GIS DATABASE WHICH IS O NLY DEPRECIATION. IT DOES NOT ADD SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO THE COMPANY. IT(TP)A NO.647/BANG/2017 PAGE 8 OF 10 33. THE OBJECTIONS AS PUT FORTH BEFORE THE TPO WE RE REITERATED BEFORE THE DRP. THE DRP IN PARAGRAPHS 6.2.2 & 6.2.3 OF ITS DIRECTIONS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AS FOLLOWS: '6.2.2 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE BE EN EXAMINED IN DETAIL. A FINANCIAL PRODUCT ON WHICH THE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM OF BANK RUNS IS A REAL TIME SYSTE M. IT IS VERY COMPLEX. ANY BUG OR PROBLEM IN IT CAN CRASH THE ENTIRE BANKING SYSTEM OF SEVERAL NATIONS. THE ASSESS EE'S CLAIM OF PROVIDING ONLY BASIC SOFTWARE SERVICES IS REJECTED. 6.2.3 THE PANEL HOLDS THAT THE SOFTWARE FOR FINANCI AL PRODUCT IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN A GEOSPATIAL SOFT WARE. THEREFORE, THE PANEL HOLDS THAT THE GENESYS IS A VA LID COMPARABLE.' 34. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE DRP HAS COMPLETELY PROCEEDED ON WRONG FACTS WHI CH DOES NOT EITHER EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE TPO O R THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REITERATED SUBMISSIO NS MADE BEFORE THE TPO AND DRP. THE LEARNED OR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE DRP/TPO. 35. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE MATERIAL BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TPO BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS: COMPANY RENDERS MAPPING AND GEOSPATIAL SERVICES. IN RENDERING SUCH SERVICES IT DEVELOPS SOFTWARE. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. THE BUSINESS PROF ILE OF THIS COMPANY AS PER THE ANNUAL REPORT DOES NOT SHOW THAT THIS COMPANY IS INTO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE. THE O NLY LINE OF BUSINESS THAT THIS COMPANY CARRIES ON IS RENDERING GIS BASED SERVICES AND THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT W HICH SPECIFIES THAT SINCE THE COMPANY CARRIES ON ONLY ONE LINE OF BUSINESS VIZ., GIS BASED SERVICES THERE IS NO NEED TO GIVE ANY SEG MENTAL RESULTS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE TPO TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS COMPANY IS PREDOMINAN TLY INTO SOFTWARE-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THE PRESENCE OF INTA NGIBLE ASSETS IS INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOT IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUSINESS. THE TPO HAS OVERLOOK ED THIS ASPECT AND PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE PRESENCE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANT. RULE 10B(2) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES) SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF IT(TP)A NO.647/BANG/2017 PAGE 9 OF 10 SUB-RULE (1) OF RULE 10B, THE COMPARABILITY OF AN I NTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH AN UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION SHALL BE JUDGED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY: (A) THE SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED OR SERVICES PROVIDED IN EITHER TRANSACTION ; (B) THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ASSETS EMPLOYED OR TO BE EMPLOYED AND THE RISKS ASSUMED, BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTIONS; IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD., CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY AND THE SAID COMPANY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. WE HOL D ACCORDINGLY. 15. THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTA NTS PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) HENCE WE ARE BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE C OORDINATE BENCH. NO CONTRARY DECISION IS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OR OF THE HIGH COURT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY EITHER THE PARTIES. 16. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THE TPO TO EXCLUDE THESE 4 COMPARABLE FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE AS HAD BEEN DONE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE MATTER OF CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, THESE FOUR COM PARABLES NAMELY., (A) GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPN. LTD., (B) INFOSYS LTD., (C) LARSEN AND TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD., AND (D) PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LT D. ARE DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE. IT(TP)A NO.647/BANG/2017 PAGE 10 OF 10 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019. SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER BENGALURU, DATED, THE 30 TH APRIL, 2019. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.