THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 660 of 2014 DATED:28.11.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad. Appellant And M/s. Sumtotal Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. .Respondent HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.660 OF 2014 Judgment: (per Hon ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This appeal by Revenue arises in context of assessment year 2007-2008 and seeks to raise following suggested substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in rejecting comparable companies on ground of exceptionally large scale of operations and thereby ignoring fact that high or low turn over do not influence profit margins ? 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of case, order of Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) was not perverse so far as deleting Ishir Infotech as comparables ignoring fact that said company satisfies employee cost filter ? 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in deleting comparable on functional difference ground ignoring information obtained under Section 133(6) of Act and also not giving opportunity to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to examine new facts, brought for first time before Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) ? Perusal of order under appeal, however, reflects that in so far as first question of law is concerned, Tribunal dealt at length with each of such companies and found on basis of earlier Tribunal decisions that companies were not comparable to assessee. These findings purely turned on fact and no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration. Further, second question of law sought to be raised seeks to assail finding as perverse. Nothing is placed on record to show that earlier Tribunal decisions which were relied upon were set at naught. We therefore find no reason to interfere in so far as this issue is concerned. As regards third substantial question of law, we find that Tribunal relied on judgment of High Court in Gemplus Jewellery reported in 330 ITR 175 and Special Bench decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chennai in ITO vs. Sac Soft Limited [313 (AT) 353]. We therefore find no reason to interfere with order under appeal. appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. No order as to costs. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 28th November, 2014 Pnb Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Hyderabad v. Sumtotal Systems India Pvt. Ltd