Conduent Business Services India LLP (formerly known as Xerox Business Services India Private Limited), Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

MA 81/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3097 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

MP No.81/Bang/2022 M/s.Conduent Business Services India LLP, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. No.81/Bang/2022 (Arising out of IT(TP)A No.361/Bang/2016 & IT (TP)A No.202/Bang/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Conduent Business Services India LLP (Formerly known as Xerox Business Services India Pvt. Ltd.) Unit A, 5 th Floor, viator Bldg Whitefield Road, Ascendas ITPB SEZ International Tech Park Bengaluru 560 066 PAN NO : AAAFX2366G Vs. ACIT Circle 7(1)(2) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Nageswar Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The Ld. A.R. submitted that there was an error crept in the order of Tribunal in ITA No.361/Bang/2022 dated 8.4.2022 in para 7, wherein the Tribunal remitted the issue with regard to disallowance of leave encashment provision debited to the P&L account u/s 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] at MP No.81/Bang/2022 M/s.Conduent Business Services India LLP, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 the ”aggregate”. According to the Ld. A.R., the word “aggregate” mentioned in para 7.1 give distorted picture and leads to confusion while passing the consequential order by AO. Hence, sought correction of that para no.7.1 of the order. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, the grievance of the assessee’s counsel is justified. Accordingly, we correct para no.7.1 as below:- “We have heard the rival submission and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, the plea of the assessee is justified. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit this issue to the file of AO to consider the amount of provision for disallowance on leave encashment charged to P&L account and AO has to decide the issue after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.” 3. Further, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal in ground No.29 as follows:- “Ground No.29: The learned AO/TPO/DRP erred in facts and in law, by excluding following comparables from the final list of comparables: a) Microgenetics Systems Ltd. b) Informed Technologies India Ltd. c) Cosmic Global Limited d) Mindtree Limited e) e4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd.” 4. On this issue, the revenue also came in appeal before this Tribunal in ground Nos.7 & 11 as follows:- Ground No.7: E4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd.: Whether the DRP is correct in excluding E4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd. while the comparable is qualifying all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO. MP No.81/Bang/2022 M/s.Conduent Business Services India LLP, Bangalore Page 3 of 4 Ground No.11: Mindtree Ltd.: Whether the DRP is correct in excluding Mindtree Ltd while the comparable is qualifying all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO.” 5. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that in para No.12.1 of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it was directed that the AO/TPO to include two comparables namely Mindtree Ltd. & e4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd. in the list of comparables. However, while adjudicating the similar grounds of appeal No.7 & 11 of revenue’s appeal, the Tribunal in para 17(iii) of the order, inadvertently directed to exclude the aforesaid two comparables, which was accepted to be included while adjudicating the ground No.29 of the assessee’s appeal. The Ld. A.R. wanted suitable correction in para 17(iii) of the order. 6. Ld. D.R. not put any serious objection. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The plea of the assessee on this issue is justified. There crept an error in para 17 (iii) of the Tribunal as argued by the assessee’s counsel. Accordingly, the said appeal is corrected as follows: “17(iii) e4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd. and Mindtree Ltd.: As discussed in earlier para of this order vide para 12.1, these companies are to be included while deciding assessee’s appeal. Accordingly, these companies are included in the list of comparables. Ordered accordingly.” MP No.81/Bang/2022 M/s.Conduent Business Services India LLP, Bangalore Page 4 of 4 8. In the result, MA filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26 th Aug, 2022 Sd/- (Beena Pillai) Judicial Member Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 26 th Aug, 2022. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.