Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that, Customer profile of comparable is completely different is incomparable. Company engaged in developing software products, development of software services and also engaged in running a training centre for software professional on online projects, was incomparable .Business model of comparable being of outsourcing its service being different from in-house business model of providing services, said company was not was a comparable. Data of company was for a financial year, that did not correspond to financial year of assessee, it could not be selected as comparable -Huge difference in turnover between tested party and comparable would necessarily require proposed comparable to be excluded from list of comparables. ( AY.2009 -10)
CIT v. Principal Global Services (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 244 (Bom)( HC) Editorial : Order in Principal Global Services (P.) Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 215 ( Pune ) (Trib) is affirmed .
S.92C: Transfer pricing- Arm’s length -Comparable – Customer profile of comparable is completely different-Incomparable-company engaged in developing software products, development of software services and also engaged in running a training centre for software professional on online projects, was incomparable -Business model of comparable being of outsourcing its service being different from in-house business model of providing services, said company was not was a comparable- Data of company was for a financial year, that did not correspond to financial year of assessee, it could not be selected as comparable -Huge difference in turnover between tested party and comparable would necessarily require proposed comparable to be excluded from list of comparables.