Atos IT Services Private Limited, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

MA 158/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Atos IT Services Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, filing a miscellaneous petition against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The petition sought correction of typographic mistakes and clarification on the comparability of Infosys Ltd. and the consideration of working capital adjustments related to delayed receivables. The Tribunal had previously excluded Infosys Ltd. as a comparable due to functional dissimilarity and noted an upper turnover filter issue, which was not contested by either party during the original proceedings. The Tribunal's decision addressed these points, affirming the exclusion of Infosys Ltd. and directing a review of the working capital adjustments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124483 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. PARITHIVEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUCH OBSERVATION REGARDING TURNOVER

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. No. 158/Bang/2023 (in IT(TP)A No. 294/Bang/2022) Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Atos IT Services Pvt. Ltd., 5 th Floor, Campus-B, Plot 8B, RMZ Centennial, ITPL Main Road, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 048. PAN: AAACX1727G Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CA Revenue by : Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 28-07-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09-10-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present miscellaneous petition is filed by the assessee against order dated 27.03.2023 seeking correction of certain typographic mistakes. 2. The first issue raised by the Ld.AR is that, while deciding the comparability of Infosys Ltd. in ground no. 2.8(e), this Tribunal upheld the functional dissimilarity of this comparable with that of assessee. However, it is the submission of the Ld.AR that this Page 2 of 4 M.P. No. 158/Bang/2023 (in IT(TP)A No. 294/Bang/2022) Tribunal has inadvertently observed that Infosys Ltd. exceeds the upper turnover filter of 200 crores which was not alleged by the Ld.AR for the assessee or the department. The Ld.AR is thus seeking to rectify para 5.5 of this order by submitting that the observation of this Tribunal regarding failure of upper limit of turnover filter may be eliminated. 3. We have perused the submissions of the Ld.AR vis-à-vis the observations of this Tribunal in para 5.5. On perusal of para 5.5, we note that this Tribunal has largely accepted the functional dissimilarity of this comparable with assessee and directed this comparable to be excluded. This Tribunal also noticed the failure of upper limit turnover filter of Rs. 200 crores. It is a mere observation by this Tribunal though the turnover filter was not argued by the assessee before this Tribunal. It cannot cause any grievance to the assessee by such observation regarding turnover filter as it is just an obiter dicta. However for the sake of clarification, we mention that this comparable is functionally not similar with that of assessee. We do not find any reason to tinger with the observations of this Tribunal in para 5.5 as suggested by the Ld.AR. In our view, this does not amount to any mistake apparent on record. 4. The next issue raised by the Ld.AR is in respect of Ground no. 3 wherein this Tribunal considered the issue pertaining to interest on delayed receivables. The Ld.AR submitted that the working capital adjustment will take care of the outstanding receivables and therefore any further adjustment on this issue may not arise. He submitted that this submission was advanced Page 3 of 4 M.P. No. 158/Bang/2023 (in IT(TP)A No. 294/Bang/2022) by the Ld.AR at the time of argument however the same has not been considered in para 7.17. 5. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 6. We note that the grounds relating to working capital adjustment has been decided by this Tribunal in ground no. 2.10 in para 6 of the order. Further as rightly submitted by the Ld.AR, there can be a situation wherein the outstanding receivables may be subsumed while computing the working capital adjustment and in such circumstances, a separate adjustment need not be made. We direct the Ld.AO/TPO to verify this argument and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Accordingly, this issue raised by the assessee in the miscellaneous petition stands allowed. In the result, the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09 th October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 09 th October, 2023 /MS / Page 4 of 4 M.P. No. 158/Bang/2023 (in IT(TP)A No. 294/Bang/2022) Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore