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) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

Infor Global Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd., A-301/302, Citipoint, Andheri-Kurla Road, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. Vs. DCIT-8(2) Mumbai.
July, 31st 2015
                          , `                     '  
                   . . ,   ,   ,   
      Before S/Sh. A D Jain ,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member
        /.ITA No.8974/Mum/2010,  /Assessment Year-2006-07
      Infor Global Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.,   DCIT-8(2)
      A-301/302, Citipoint, Andheri-Kurla Vs Mumbai.
      Road, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E),
      Mumbai-400 059.
      PAN: AAACB 6197 Q
              ( /Appellant)                     (  / Respondent)
                       /Assessee by: Karishma R. Phatarphekar
                                   and Ms. Keerthiga R. Sharma
                        / Revenue by: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT and
                                      Shri Jitendra Yadav

             / Date of Hearing                              :29 -07-2015
          / Date of Pronouncement                           :29 -07-2015

                      ,1961   254(1)                                 
                    Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act)
                       PER RAJENDRA, AM-
Challenging the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-II, Mumbai, dated 17.8.2010 and the
order of the Assessing Officer(AO)dated 16.9.2010,completed u/s.144C (13) r.w.s. 143(3) of
the Act,the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

"1. The grounds stated here under are independent of, and without prejudice to one another:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer
('TPO') and the learned Assessing Officer (' AO') under directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute
Resolution Panel ('ORP'), erred in making an addition of Rs. 4,26,00,000 to the Appellant's total
income based on the provisions of Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred and the
Hon'ble DRP further erred in selecting companies which have a different functional, asset or risk
profile as compared to that of the Appellant, or do not satisfy the filter / criteria applied by the TPO
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding /confirming the action of the TPO in arbitrarily rejecting companies by applying filters having turnover above Rs. 1 crores without considering an upper ceiling for the range. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred and the HonP'ble DRP further erred in incorrectly computing the operating margins of companies while making adjustment to the international transaction of the Appellant. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in not allowing risk adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10B of the Rules to account for difference between international transactions and the alleged comparable uncontrolled transactions selected by the learned TPO 8974/M/10 IGSIPL 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred and the Hori'ble DRP further erred in not allowing the variation/reduction of 5 percent from the arithmetic mean while determining the arm's length price as envisaged under the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in failing to appreciate that the Appellant was claiming tax exemption under Section 10A of the Act and accordingly had no intention to shift profits outside India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions which is a pre-requisite condition to make any adjustment under the provision of Chapter X of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add or alter by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal either before or during the hearing of the appeal." Assessee-company,engaged in the business of research, development and export of computed software filed its return of income on 30.11.2006,declaring an income of Rs.2.41 crores.The AO completed assessment u/s.144C (13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act,determining its income at Rs.6.67 crores. 2.During the assessment proceedings the AO found that the assessee had transactions with the Associated Enterprises(AE)exceeding Rs.15 crores.Therefore,he made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) to ascertain the Arms length Price (ALP).Vide order,dated 26. 10.2009,the TPO proposed adjustment of Rs.4.85 crores on account of ALP in respect of international transactions.The assessee filed its objection against the draft assessment order prepared by the AO before the DRP-II. 3.Before the DRP,the assessee contended that the international transactions pertained to the provisions of software development and support services, that the assessee had valued the international transactions following the CUP method, that the TPO followed TNMM method and proposed and adjustment of Rs.4.85 crores, that the TPO had erred in rejecting the study conducted by the assessee and by taking new set of 14 comparable entities.It was further argued that there was functional difference in case of SSA Global and the job done by the assessee,that the TPO had used the data available as in December 2008.The assessee specifically objected to the inclusion of Infosys Limited and Flextronics Software System Limited. After considering the submission of the assessee,the DRP held that the inclusion of Infosys Ltd appeared to be inconsistent with the nature of business turnover and volumes, that the data of other 13 comparable companies were correctly applied by the TPO, that the search process of the TPO was in accordance with the TP Regulations,that the exclusion of Infosys Limited would make the set of comparables rational and reasonable.The DRP directed the AO to exclude Infosys Ltd.from the set of comparables and to compute the ALP. 4.During the course of hearing before us,Authorised Representative(AR)stated that the assessee had not carried out TP study for the year under consideration, that TPO had selected 14 comparables, that the assessee was against inclusion of six comparable, that the DRP had excluded one comparable i.e. Infosys Ltd. When the order of the DRP was brought to the 2 8974/M/10 IGSIPL notice of the Departmental Representative (DR) by the Bench,he admitted that it did not contain detailed discussion. He left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. 5.After perusing the material on record,we are of the opinion that the DRP has not passed a speaking and reasoned order. The assessee had specifically objected inclusion of Infosys Limited and Flextronics Software System Limited. But,the DRP in its one paragraph order had made some general observations. As a First Appellate Forum,it was the duty of the DRP to discuss the inclusion/exclusion of the comparable in a detailed manner. It is a fact that the assessee had not furnished the TP study report.Therefore, it was necessary on part of the DRP to deliberate upon the comparables and the methodology of selecting the comparables.In short,the order of the DRP does not fall under the category of a speaking order.Therefore, in the interest of justice,we are remitting back the issue to the DRP,who would pass a detailed and reasoned order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee . As a result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. . Order pronounced in the open court on 29th,July,2015. 29 ,2015 Sd/- Sd/- (.. /A.D. JAIN) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /Mumbai, /Date:29.07.2015 . ..Jv.Sr.PS. /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.Appellant / 2. Respondent / 3.The concerned CIT(A)/ , 4.The concerned CIT / 5.DR A Bench, ITAT, Mumbai / , ,.. . 6.Guard File/ //True Copy// / BY ORDER, / Dy./Asst. Registrar , /ITAT, Mumbai. 3
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - We Bring IT. Offshore software outsourcing company. We use Global Delivery Model (GDM) and believe in Follow The Sun principle

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