Case Law Details
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi)
OTS E-Solutions Pvt. Ltd.: From the perusal of the records it can be seen that OTS E-Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was held as not comparable in subsequent assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 by the Tribunal. The functional dissimilarity is apparent on record and there are no changes in the present assessment year. Hence, we direct the TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list of comparables.
Celkon Impex Pvt. Ltd.: This company is in designing and manufacturing of mobile phones while the assessee company is in trading of consumer electronics, home appliances, computers and IT peripherals which is different portfolio all together. From the perusal of the records it can be seen that Celkon Impex Pvt. Ltd. was held as not comparable in subsequent assessment year i.e. A.Y. 201415 by the DRP. The functional dissimilarity is apparent on record and there are no change in the present assessment year. Hence, we direct the TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list of comparables.
Micromax Informatics Limited: It is pertinent to note that this company is also functionally dissimilar to the assessee company. The company undertakes all business activities and undertakes all associated business risks. The company outsources manufacturing activities to third party contractors and sells the products under its own brand name as an entrepreneur. The DRP in subsequent year i.e. 2014-15 has excluded Micromax Informatics Limited from the comparable list. The functional dissimilarity is apparent on record and there are no change in the present assessment year. Hence, we direct the TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list of comparables.
United Telelinks (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd.: It is pertinent to note that this company is also functionally dissimilar to the assessee company. It has brand owning and outsources manufacturing activities to third party contractors. The DRP in subsequent year i.e. 2014-15 has excluded United Telelinks (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. from the comparable list. The functional dissimilarity is apparent on record and there are no change in the present assessment year. Hence, we direct the TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list of comparables.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
