Facts and Background:
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision on September 30, 2018. The Appellant believed that the learned TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in their decision in the order.
As a result, the Appellant filed an appeal under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act of 1991.
According to the Appellant, in the Tribunal's order dated September 30, 2018, the Ld. TPO recognized those companies engaged in ADP P Ltd Hyderabad information technology-enabled services as comparable, even though these companies were technically dissimilar to the Appellant's company.
The Appellant claimed that it does not want MPS Limited to be seen as a comparable for the Appellant's company. The Appellant used the written representations he submitted to the Tribunal on September 2nd, 2018, in which he made special claims as to why MPS Limited cannot be comparable. The Ld. TPO, on the other hand, paid little attention to the points presented in the written submissions.
The Appellant also purchased the order issued by the ITAT on December 18, 2020, in which the Appellant questioned MPS Limited's comparability. The Appellant also claimed in the order dated December 18, 2020, that the ITAT stated that all companies whose revenues from IT-enabled services are less than 75% of total operating revenue are exempt. The revenue of MPS Limited does not correspond to the ITAT's argument.
The Appellant also argued that the ITAT did not have any guidance concerning MPS Limited in its order dated September 30, 2018. The Appellant also stated that the comparison to MPS Limited requires guidance. The Assessee requested that this comparison be set aside because MPS Ltd does not meet the ITAT's 75 percent requirements.
Section 254 of the Income Tax Act of 1991 was examined by the ITAT. It also took into account the statements and filters it applied to the order on December 18, 2020.
The ITAT believes that the order dated September 30, 2018, needs to be corrected. As a result, the Assessee's M.A is successful.