HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. NO.471 OF 2014
DATED:25.7.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax – IV Hyderabad … Appellant And M/s. Market Tools Research (P) Limited, 1st Floor, Cyber Pearl, Hitec City Madhapur Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. NO.471 OF 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, dt.24.10.2013, in relation to assessment year 2008- 2009, on the following suggested questions of law:
(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that companies with super normal profits should not be selected as comparables?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that companies with substantially high turnover should not be selected as comparables without giving a finding on influence of turnover on the profit, price or cost of services rendered?
(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that M/s. Cosmic Global Ltd., cannot be considered as a comparable on the ground that it had outsourced the IT enabled services to third party vendor-companies when the assessee – company itself had included M/s. Cosmic Global Ltd., as a comparable?
(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that M/s. Grossdomain solution cannot be considered as a comparable on the ground that the company is engaged in diversified activities whereas the assessee-company is only providing IT enabled services to its Associated Enterprise?
(5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in excluding M/s. Acropetal Technologies Pvt., Ltd., (SEG) from the list of comparable on the ground that ITES segment relating to engineering services could not be compared to the ITES/BPO function of the assessee?
(6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that communication expenses should be excluded from both export turnover as well as total turnover for the purpose of computing deducting under Section 10A of the Income Tax without appreciating that there is no provision in the Act to reduce the communication expenses from Total Turnover?
It appears from the findings of the learned Tribunal that all the issues aforesaid raised are decided following decisions either of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal or High Court. Even the last issue in question No.6 has also been dealt with by the Tribunal following Bombay High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Income
[1]
Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. . The Special Bench of Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in the case of I.T.O. v. Sak Soft
[2]
Ltd.
has also taken similar view.
In that view of the matter, we do not find any question of law to decide in this appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 25.7.2014 bnr
[1] 330 ITR 175
[2] 313 ITR 353