Case Law Details
Nvidia Graphics Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
In this case Assessee seeks exclusion of three comparable companies viz., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Tech Mahindra Limited.
The Learned counsel sought exclusion of the aforesaid 3 comparable companies from the list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO. In this regard he relied on decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of M/S.Metricstream Infotech (India) Ltd., Vs. DCIT IT(TP) A.No.1418 & 2735/Bang/2016 for AY 2013-14 order dated 27.2.2019. In the aforesaid decision, the 3 comparables referred to in Grd.No.6(a) were excluded. It is not in dispute that the functional profile of the Assessee and the Assessee in the case cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee are identical. In fact the very same 7 comparables had been chosen in the case of the Assessee in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the Assessee before us. Though two out of the three companies were chosen by the Assessee in its TP study, before CIT(A), the Assessee has challenged its inclusion. The Special Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 207(SB)(Chd.) has taken the view that it is open to the parties in Transfer Pricing cases to take a stand contrary to their TP study, if they contend that the stand taken in the TP study is contrary to facts or was erroneous. Such a claim cannot be disregarded only on the basis that it is contrary to Assessee’s own stand in the TP study.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 28.2.2018 of CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer, “AO” in short) in relation to AY 2013-14.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
