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