Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: empanelment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: cpt :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
 
 
From the Courts »
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a

Delhi Call Centre Private Limited, I-10, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), IP Estate, CR Building, New Delhi - 110002
March, 26th 2015
                                                          ITA NO. 5359/Del/2010


                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                      DELHI BENCH "I", NEW DELHI
               BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                   AND
                 SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER


                        I.T.A. No. 5359/DEL/2010
                               A.Y. : 2006-07
Delhi Call Centre Private Limited,            Income Tax Officer,
I-10, Lajpat Nagar-II,                  VS. Ward 10(1),
New Delhi                                     IP Estate, CR Building,
(PAN: AABCD9233C)                             New Delhi - 110002

(APPELLANT)                                   (RESPONDENT)

           Assessee by                :   Sh. Ramit Katyal, CA & Puneet
                                          Chugh, CA
          Department by               :   Sh. Judy James, Spl. Counsel


                      Date of Hearing : 23-3-2015
                      Date of Order    : 25-3-2015


                              ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU : JM
      This appeal      by the Assessee         is directed against the

assessment order dated 19.10.2010 of the Assessing Officer passed

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961               pertaining to

assessment year 2006-07, on the following grounds:-


   1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the

      Learned Assessing officer was not justified in making an

      addition of Rs. 129,32,857 to the returned income on account

      of adjustment to the arm's length price of the 'international

      transactions' of call centre services on the basis of the order
                                     1
                                                               ITA NO. 5359/Del/2010


        passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer

        Pricing Officer (TPO) & as per the directions of Dispute

        Resolution Panel (DRP).

     2. That the DRP erred on facts and in law in giving the direction

        confirming   the   rejection       of   the    following    comparable

        companies identified by the assessee:

S.No.        Name of company       OP/OC%              Reasons for rejection

1.      Surevin Internet           3.47%              Low revenue. Call centre
        Services Ltd.                                 activities amounting to
                                                      Rs. 91.24 lacs as against
                                                      filter of 1 crore.


2.      Shreejal Info Hubs Ltd.    4.93%              Functionally not
                                                      comparable.       In   the
                                                      business of information
                                                      vending and rendering
                                                      services to call centres.

3.      Optimus Global             -28.85%            Functionally not
                                                      comparable. Persistent
                                                      losses

4.      Firstsource Solutions      7.12%              Rejected on ground of
                                                      related Solutions party
                                                      transactions

5.      NIIT Smartserve Ltd.       -20.78%            Related party
                                                      transactions & Persistent
                                                      losses




                                       2
                                                        ITA NO. 5359/Del/2010





2.1 That the DRP was not justified in giving directions rejecting the

objections and evidence furnished by the appellant company without

passing a speaking order.

2.2 That the TPO& DRP erred on facts and in law in rejecting

Surevin Internet Services Limited as a comparable company holding

that its turnover from call centre activities are less than Rs.1 crore.

2.2.1That the TPO& DRP erred on facts and in law in rejecting

Surevin Internet Services Limited as a comparable company holding

that it has accumulated losses to the extent of Rs.3.92 million as

against the share capital of RS.2.88 million and ignoring the

reserves and surplus of the company.

2.3 That the TPO & DRP erred on facts and in law in rejecting

Shreejal Info Hubs Limited on the ground that is functionally

different from the assessee.

2.4That the TPO & DRP erred on facts and in law in rejecting

Optimus outsourcing company Limited holding that it is not

functionally comparable and that it is incurring persistent losses.

2.4.1 That the TPO & DRP ought to have considered the submission

of the appellant that the grounds on which Optimus outsourcing

company Limited has been rejected then ALLSEC Technologies

limited an accepted company also ought to have been rejected.


                                    3
                                                     ITA NO. 5359/Del/2010


2.5 Whether merely because a company has incurred loss I can it be

excluded from the comparables ?

2.6 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case I the

Learned TPO & DRP were not justified in rejecting NIIT smart Serve &

First Solution as comparable companies.

3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. TPO & DRP

ought to have included B2K corp. as a comparable company for

benchmarking the arm's length price.

4. That the DRP failed to consider the fresh transfer pricing study

submitted by the Appellant company.

5. That the TPO &DRP erred on facts and in law in not appreciating

that undertaking the benchmarking analysis applying TNMM by

considering only 2 high profit margin companies give skewed /

absurd results and is not representative of the industry margin.

6. That the TPO/ DRP erred on facts and in law in not appreciating

that the assessee was a low risk captive service provider and

appropriate adjustment in the operating profit margin of the

assessee or the comparable companies was required to be made on

this account in terms of rule lOB of the Income Tax Rules.

7. That the TPO/DRP erred on facts and in law in not considering

financials of the associated enterprises placed on record while

                                  4
                                                         ITA NO. 5359/Del/2010


proposing adjustment on account of difference in arm's length price

of international transactions.

7.1That on the facts and circumstances of the case, there could not

be any allegation as to the international transactions not being at

arm's length considering that the associated enterprises have

earned marginal profit.

8. That the TPO & DRP erred on facts and in law in not appreciating

that the income of the assessee is exempt under section 10A of the

Income Tax Act and hence, there could not be any motive for the

transfer of profits outside India.

9.That the TPO & DRP erred in law in not allowing benefit to the

extent of (+/-)5% in terms of the proviso to Section 92C (2), while

determining      the   arm's     length   price   of   the   'international

transactions'.

10.That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing

Rs. 30,600/- on amortization of preliminary expenses incurred by the

assessee on the issue of shares, holding that the assessee in not an

industrial undertaking and is not entitled to these expenses under

section 35D of the Act.

11.That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing,

under section 35D of the Act, an expense of Rs. 4,85,591/- incurred


                                      5
                                                        ITA NO. 5359/Del/2010


by the assessee as preoperative expenses, holding that the

assessee company has already claimed expenses to the extent

allowable, in earlier years.

12. That the assessment order framed is bad in law.

13. That the Levy of interest u/s234B is excessive & without

authority of law.

14.   That the appellant craves for leave to add, alter, modify any of

the grounds of appeal mentioned above at the time of hearing.

2.    The brief facts in the case are that the return of income

declaring NIL income after claiming deduction of Rs. 1,25,45,750/-

u/s. 10A was filed on 27.11.2007 and the same was processed u/s.

143(1).   The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice

u/s. 143(2) was sent to the assessee company. The TPO has passed

the order u/s. 92CA(3) dated 29.7.2009 wherein he had made an

adjustment of Rs. 1,94,59,762/- in the Arms Length Price of the

assessee company.        Thus, the AO made the addition of Rs.

1,94,59,762/- in the income of the assessee company being

difference between the Arm's Length Price vide his draft assessment

order dated 27.11.2009.        Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the

AO, assessee filed Appeal before the DRP and the DRP vide its order

dated 30.8.2010 passed u/s. 144C of the I.T. Act has upheld the

draft assessment order. Thereafter the AO assessed the income of

                                     6
                                                        ITA NO. 5359/Del/2010





the assessee at Rs. 1,29,32,857/- vide his order dated 19.10.2010

passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.


3.    Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee is in appeal

before the Tribunal.


4.   Ld. Counsel of the assessee         has reiterated the contentions

raised in the grounds of appeal and stated that the AO was not

justified in making an addition of Rs. 129,32,857/- to the returned

income   on   account   of    transfer   pricing   adjustment      to   the

`international transactions' of call centre services on the basis of the

order passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act by the TPO as confirmed by the

directions of the DRP. He took us through the order of the DRP and

submitted that this order is cryptic and non speaking. He pointed

out that none of the contentions raised in the             appeal were

addressed by the DRP. Hence, he submitted that the assessment

order framed is bad in law.


5.   On the other hand Ld. DR relied upon the order of the

Assessing Officer as well as the order of the DRP and requested to

uphold the same.


6.   We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. At

the threshold, we find that the Ld. DRP vide its order dated

30.8.2010 passed u/s. 144C of the I.T. Act has adjudicated the issue

as under:-

                                    7
                                                ITA NO. 5359/Del/2010


"The    objections        relates     to    addition       of    Rs.
1,94,59,762/- on account of adjustment of the arm's
length prices of international transactions computed
by the TPO in his draft assessment order.                        The
addition has resulted on account of working of
OP/OC percentage on the basis of comparables.
Originally the assessee had taken 22 comparable
companies      in    the       TP     documents         and      had
subsequently reduced            it to 8 comparables only.
The    TPO    has        rejected     5    of    the     proposed
comparables and worked out the OP/OC percentage
on     the basis of 3 comparables arriving at the
average of 28.35% and applying it to determine the
adjustment figure of Rs. 1,94,59,762/-.

As regards rejection of comparables proposed by
the assessee the AO has given cogent and detailed
reasons for the same. We have gone through the
objections    made        by    the    assessee         and     after
considering    the        arguments        put     up     by     the
representatives and also the draft assessment order
and in view of the evidence produced by the
assessee's representative, we find that one of the
comparables i.e. Mapel E Solutions needs to be
taken out from the list of comparables proposed by
the TPO.      The TPO is directed to work out the
adjustment accordingly.

As regards the other queries of the assessee the
same have been adequately answered by the TPO
in his draft order and we do not find any reason to
interference with rest of the draft order."
                     8
                                                          ITA NO. 5359/Del/2010


7.     From the above finding of the Ld. DRP, we find that the Ld.
DRP has not addressed any of the            contentions raised by the
assessee and has not given reasons or findings on the rejection of
the comparables considered by the assessee. The Ld. DRP has
simply     mentioned that the AO        has given cogent and detailed
reasons for the same. In our considered opinion, the finding given
by the Ld. DRP is not a speaking one and is not sustainable in the
eyes of law.     Therefore, in the interest of justice,    we cancel the
assessment order dated 19.10.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C
of the I.T. Act and remit back all the issues to the file of the Ld. DRP
with the directions to properly consider and examine the issues in
detail and give a finding on each of the contention raised by the
assessee in its appeal and pass a speaking order thereon.

8.    In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee      stands allowed

for statistical purposes.


      Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25/3/2015.

      Sd/-                                                Sd/-
[J.S. REDDY]                                        [H.S. SIDHU]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date 25/3/2015
"SRBHATNAGAR"
Copy forwarded to: -
1.    Appellant -

2.    Respondent -
3.    CIT
4.    CIT (A)
5.    DR, ITAT                    TRUE COPY
                                                   By Order,



                                                   Assistant Registrar,
                                                   ITAT, Delhi Benches

                                    9
     ITA NO. 5359/Del/2010




10

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Experience

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions