Cura Technologies Limited, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

MA 90/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4742 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H PHANI RAJU
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHANA RAO
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.90/HYD/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 301 /HYD/201 7 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 CURA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD. PAN: AADCS 2135 A VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI P. MURALI MOHANA RAO REVENUE BY: SRI H. PHANI RAJU, DR DATE OF HEARING: 08/02/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 /0 3 /2019 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ALLEGED MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 11/05/2018 . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS RAISED GROUND NO.4 RELATING TO ARMS LENGTH PRICE ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PROVISION OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THAT ITAT HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE GROUND NO.4(T) , WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE LD DRP ERRED IN NO T REJECTING 4 COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID COMPANIES CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THE ASSESSEE DUE TO THE VARIOUS REASONS SUCH AS HIGH TURNOVER / FUNCTIONALLY DISSIMILAR / EXTRAORDINARY EVENT / NO SEGMENT DATA / PRODUCT B ASED, ETC. THE LIST OF 4 COMPANIES IS AS UNDER : 2 S. NO. NAME OF THE COMPARABLE FUNCTIONALITY DISSIMILAR NO SEGMENTAL DETAILS HIGH TURNOVER HIGH BRAND VALUE EXTRA ORDINARY EVENT FAILS TPO FILTER 1 LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD 2 MINDTREE LTD 3 PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD 4 R S SOFTWARE (INDIA) LTD THEREFORE, IT WAS PRAY ED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED TO DECIDE THE SAID GROUND ON MERITS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF RECALL ING THE ORDER, IT WOULD SUFFICE IF THE TRIBUNAL , IN PARA 5.2 OF ITS ORDER , WOULD CLARIFY THAT ONLY THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY THE COMPARAB LES WHOSE SEGMENTAL RESULTS ARE AVAILABLE S HOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND HENCE, TH E MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS TO BE DISMISSED. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN PARA 5.2 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, WE HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT ONLY THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE SEGME NTAL RESULTS OF THE COMPARABLES HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION . THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT , IF THE COMPARABLES DID NOT HAVE SEGMENTAL RESULTS, SUCH 3 COMPARABLES CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO GIV E ANY FURTHER DIRECTION AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION. THUS, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED . 5. IN THE RESULT, M ISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0 TH MARCH, 2019. SD/ - SD/ - (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH MARCH , 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) M/S. CURA TECHNOLOGIES LTD C/O. P. MURALI & CO., CAS, 6 - 3 - 655/2/3: 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 082. 2) DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD. 3) DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL - 1, BENGALURU. 4 ) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 5 ) GUARD FILE