THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT (A) vs M/S ARM EMBEDDED

- 1 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT (A)
TH
5 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING
80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE – 560 095

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-11(1)
ND
2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING
80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA
BANGALORE – 560 095
…APPELLANTS









(BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by K
P SWETHA
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka

AND:

1. M/S ARM EMBEDDED
TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.
BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY P. LTD.
TH TH
SEZ CITRINE BLOCK, 5 AND 6 FLOOR
MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD
DODDANAKUNDI VILLAGE
MAHADEVAPURA

BANGALORE – 560 048
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI T. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


THE INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE
THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE &
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED
BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN
ITA NO. 1659/Bang/2014 DATED:31/08/2015 AND CONFIRM THE
ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BENGALURU & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section
260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ The Act ] impugning an order
dated 31.08.2015 [ impugned order ] passed by the learned
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench ‘A’, Bengaluru
[ ITAT ] in I.T(TP).A No.1659/Bang/2014 for the Assessment Year
[ AY ] 2009-2010.

- 3 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


2. The Respondent [ the Assessee ] filed the said appeal
against an order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Bangalore [ CIT(A) ] in an appeal against
an assessment order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the Assessing
Officer [ AO ] under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the
Act for AY 2009-2010.
3. The Assessee is engaged in providing software design,
development and maintenance services to its associated
enterprises. The Assessee is a subsidiary of ARM Limited, U.K.,
and it also provides certain marketing support services regarding
the sale of ARM Limited products in India.
4. The Assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2009-
`
2010 on 30.09.2009 declaring a total income of 15,85,128/-.
Since the Assessee entered into international transactions with its
associated enterprises [ AEs ], the AO referred the matter under
Section 92CA of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer [ TPO ]. The
Assessee had furnished a Transfer Pricing Study [ TP Study ] to
establish that its international transactions were at the Arm’s
Length Price [ ALP ]. The Assessee had selected Transactional Net

- 4 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


Margin Method [ TNMM ] as the most appropriate method and the
operating profit to operating cost as the Profit Level Indicator [ PLI ].
The Assessee had selected seventeen comparables, whose mean
margin worked out to 13% as against its own margin of 10.20%.
The learned TPO rejected the Assessee’s TP Study, inter alia , on
the ground that the comparable companies selected by the
Assessee for benchmarking the PLI did not ‘stand scrutiny of
comparability characteristics as enunciated in Rule 10B’. The
learned TPO held that the Assessee’s determination of ALP was
not reliable. Whilst the learned TPO accepted certain entities as
comparables, it rejected the others selected by the Assessee. The
learned TPO passed an order dated 29.01.2013 determining the
arithmetic mean of the margins of the comparable entities selected
at 24.32%. After reducing the working capital adjustment of 1.71%,
the learned TPO determined the adjusted margin as 22.61%.
Applying the said margin to the Assessee’s operating cost of
` 77,42,84,656/-, the learned TPO determined the ALP at
` `
94,93,50,417/- as against the price of 85,32,91,086/- received
by the Assessee. Accordingly, the shortfall was determined at
`
9,60,59,331/- and the learned TPO directed that the same be

- 5 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


treated as a transfer pricing adjustment under Section 92CA of the
Act in respect of the Software Development segment.
5. The AO forwarded a draft assessment order dated
26.02.2013 to the Assessee. The Assessee did not file any
objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel and informed the
AO that it would prefer an appeal before the CIT(A). Accordingly,
the AO passed the assessment order dated 30.04.2013 making
the said transfer pricing adjustment. The AO also recomputed the
deduction under Section 10A of the Act by reducing the
expenditure incurred in foreign currency towards
`
telecommunication charges ( 55,85,404/-) and travel expenditure
( ` 2,09,20,627/-) from the export turnover, and not from the total
turnover, of the undertaking. Consequently, the AO disallowed
` 35,79,427/- as excess deduction claimed under Section 10A of
the Act. Accordingly, the AO determined the Assessee’s total
income at ` 10,12,23,886/- instead of ` 15,85,128/- as per the
Assessee's return.

- 6 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the Assessee preferred
an appeal before the CIT(A) in Appeal No.81/R-11/CIT(A)-IV/2012-
13 on several grounds. The said appeal was partly allowed.
7. Both the Assessee and the Revenue filed appeals before
the learned ITAT, which were disposed of by the impugned order.
The present appeal arises from the impugned order in so far as it
relates to the Assessee’s appeal.
8. The Revenue has projected the following question for
consideration of this Court:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the
assessing authority to recomputed the deduction
under section 10A after reducing those expenses that
were reduced only from export turnover, to reduce
from the total turnover also, without appreciating that
there is no provision in section 10A to the effect that
such expenses should also be reduced from the total
turnover as clause (iv) of the Explanation to section
10A provides that such expenses have to be reduced
only from export turnover?”

9. However, subsequently, the Revenue sought to amend the
question of law and, by a memo, projected five questions for
consideration of this Court, of which the following two were noticed
by this Court in its order dated 03.07.2018:

- 7 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


“(1) Whether, the tribunal on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case was right in excluding i)
Bodhtree consulting Ltd., ii) M/s.Kals information
systems ltd., from the list of comparables, holding
that they are functionally different, without
appreciating the detailed reasoning of TPO as well
the CIT(A) that the comparables satisfy all the
qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO
and that selection of comparables in a case depends
on assessee specific FAR analysis?

(2) Whether, the tribunal on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case was right in directing to
include M/s.Thinksoft global services ltd., and M/s.
Fcs Software solutions ltd., without appreciating that
these were excluded by the TPO for a specific reason
that they had working capital adjustment of over and
above the maximum capped limit of 0.91% and the
tribunal directed to include the above comparables,
without addressing the specific reason adduced by
the TPO?”

10. This Court found that no substantial question of law arose in
the case and accordingly dismissed the appeal by an order dated
03.07.2018.
11. In the said order, this Court also referred to its decision in
Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax and another v. M/s.
1
Softbrands India Private Limited . The Revenue appealed the
order dated 03.07.2018 passed by this Court before the Supreme
Court, and the said appeal was tagged along with a batch of

1
2018 SCC OnLine Kar 2330

- 8 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


matters including an appeal arising from the decision in
Softbrands ( supra ).
12. The Supreme Court did not concur with the view of this
Court in Softbrands (supra) and held that questions relating to
transfer pricing adjustments may also give rise to substantial
questions of law. It was necessary to consider whether the
provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder had been
followed while determining the ALP. The Supreme Court allowed
the said batch of appeals – SAP Labs India Private Limited v.
2
Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore and other connected
matters – and remanded the matter to this Court to consider the
questions relating to the transfer pricing in view of the observations
made by the Supreme Court in SAP Labs ( supra ) and other
connected appeals. This Court is required to consider the
questions of law without referring to the observations of this Court
in Softbrands ( supra).
13. Thereafter, by an order dated 12.02.2025, this Court
admitted the present appeal to consider the following question of
law:

2
(2024) 17 SCC 344

- 9 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the
assessing authority to recompute the deduction
under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, after
reducing those expenses that were reduced only
from export turnover, to reduce from the total
turnover also, without appreciating that there is no
provision in Section 10A to the effect that such
expenses should also be reduced from the total
turnover as clause (iv) of the Explanation to Section
10A provides that such expenses have to be reduced
only from export turnover?”

14. The learned counsel for the parties state that the order
dated 12.02.2025 incorrectly records the question of law and the
questions as referred to in the order dated 03.07.2018 fall for
consideration in this appeal.
Re: Question No.1
15. Whether the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, was right in excluding i) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., ii)
M/s. KALS Information Systems Limited, from the list of
comparables, holding that they are functionally different, without
appreciating the detailed reasoning of TPO as well the CIT(A) that
the comparables satisfy all the qualitative and quantitative filters
applied by the TPO and that selection of comparables in a case
depends on assessee specific FAR analysis?

- 10 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


16. This question relates to exclusion of Bodhtree Consulting
Limited and M/s. KALS Information Systems Limited as
comparables. The learned ITAT followed its earlier decision in
3
Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited v. DCIT , whereby
Bodhtree Consulting Limited was rejected as a comparable to a
company rendering software development services. It was noted
that Bodhtree Consulting Limited was engaged in the business of
software products and providing an open and end-to-end web
solution software consultancy which was not similar to the
software development services rendered by the Assessee. The
learned ITAT also referred to the decision in Nethawk Networks
4
Private Limited v. ITO and Willis Processing Services (I) P.
5
Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3), Mumbai.
17. Further, relying on its decision in Mindtek (India) Limited v.
6
DCIT , the learned ITAT also found that Bodhtree Consulting
Limited had abnormal profits for the relevant previous year. The
learned ITAT thus accepted both the reasons canvassed on behalf

3
IT(TP)A. No.271/Bang/2014 dated 14.08.2014
4
ITA No. 7633/MUM/2012 dated 06.11.2013; [2014] 41 taxmann.com 250 (Mumbai-
Trib.)
5
IT Appeal Nos.4429 & 4547/Mum/2012 decided on 01.03.2013; [2013] 30
taxmann.com 350 (Mumbai-Trib.)
6
IT(TP)A No.70/Bang/2014 dated 21.08.2014

- 11 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


of the Assessee – that Bodhtree Consulting Limited was
functionally different and that it had abnormal profits for the
relevant previous year – and directed that it be excluded from the
list of comparables.
18. Similarly, the learned ITAT also found that M/s. KALS
Information Systems Limited was not functionally comparable as it
had revenues from both software development and software
products. The findings that the said companies were functionally
not comparable with the Assessee are essentially findings of fact.
Since they are based on relevant material, the same cannot be
considered as perverse.
7
19. In M/s. Fiserv India Private Limited v. ITO , the Delhi
Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal examined the profile
of M/s. Bodhtree Consulting Limited and found that the same was
not comparable to the assessee in that case, M/s. Fiserv India
Private Limited, which was engaged in software development
services. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:



7
ITA No. 1822/Del/2014, decided on 26.06.2015

- 12 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


" BODHTREE CONSULTING LTD:

10. The learned AR submitted that this comparable
be excluded on the ground that this company has
experienced abnormally high increasing
sales/profitability for the year under consideration i.e.
F.Y. 2008-09. The Ld. AR further submitted that
Bodhtree is a provider of innovating consulting and
technology services. The company has niche
strengths in building and managing a business
oriented IT environment with rich experience in
technology incubation, product engineering, business
intelligence, data management, SOA consulting,
CRM consulting, data warehousing and product
engineering. It was submitted that merely because
one segment of the company is of software
development, the same does not entail the company
to be used as a comparable. Further it was submitted
that M/s Bodhtree collaborates with reputed software
vendors of the Silicon Valley for implementation and
development of solutions and does not carry out the
development themselves. It was submitted that
Bodhtree is functionally not comparable and should
not considered as comparable company. The AR
submitted that Bodhtree has experienced abnormally
fluctuating sales/profitability. A chart in support of the
same was highlighted which is as under:

F.Y. 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Sales 53,189,16 103,528,90 103,665,82 160,575,21 225,676,98 212,115,20
5 5 4 2 8 7
PBIT 925,404 46,255,168 16,199,521 71,439,120 50,515,860 (4,000,933)
PBIT/Sale 1.74% 44.68% 15.63% 44.49% 22.38% -1.89%
s
Base year 195% 100% 155% 141% 94%
Sales
(Increase
in %
taking FY
2005-06
as the
base)
Base year 4998% 35% 441% 71% -8%
PBIT
(Increas
in %
taking FY

- 13 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


2005-06
as the
base

10.1 On the basis of above, it was stated that
increase in PBIT is 441% for FY 2008- 09 whereas
the increase in sales is 155%, which indicates that
there is a disproportionate increase in the profit of the
company, hence the same ought to be rejected.:

10.2 The Ld. AR also draw attention to annual report
of Bodhtree for subsequent year where it has
categorically mentioned that margin of the company
has fallen down due to termination of a contract with
a customer. Based on the above the Ld. AR
submitted it can be reasonably concluded that the
operating margins of FY 2008-09 were significantly
influenced by the above mentioned contract, in
absence of which the normalized operating margin
for F.Y. 2009-10 and F.Y. 10-11 were considerably
lower. In this regard, reliance was placed on the
decision in the case of PTC Software India Pvt. Ltd.
vs. DCIT dated 31.10.2014 and Q. Logic India Pvt.
Ltd. vs. DCIT dated 21.10.2014 in ITA No.
27/PN/2014 wherein the said company was excluded
as comparable on account of fluctuating margin.
Apart from the above, reference was also made to
another decision in the case of Mindteck in ITA No.
17/Bangalore/2014 dated 21.10.2014 wherein ITAT
has excluded Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. from the list of
final comparables on account of fluctuations in
margins over the years.

10.3 The ld AR also relied on the decision of the ITAT
Bangalore Bench in M/s. Softtek India Private Limited
Vs. ITO, ITA No.222/Bang/2014 for the Assessment
Year 2009-10, wherein the Tribunal excluded
Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. as a comparable since it is
functionally different and engaged in developing
software products and segmental data is available in
public domain. 10.4 The learned DR supported the
order of DRP and the TPO. 10.5 Having considered
rival submissions, we find that the issue regarding the

- 14 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


exclusion of the instant comparable stands examined
by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of
M/s. Softek India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No.
222/Bang/2014 for assessment year 2009-10
wherein in an order dated 31.10.2014 it was held as
under:

"4.3 Having regard to the contentions of the rival
parties and also the material on record, we find that
the assessee is only a software services company
whereas M/s. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. is also into
the business of software product development and
segmented data is not available in the public domain.
Therefore, we are satisfied that it is functionally
different and cannot be considered as a comparable
to the assessee-company. As regards revenue
recognition model of the assessee and M/s. Bodhtree
Consulting Ltd., are concerned, since the relevant
material to determine the revenue model of the
assessee herein is not available on record, we are
not inclined to give any finding on this issue.
Therefore, we direct the AO to exclude M/s. Bodhtree
Consulting Ltd., from the list of comparables as it is
functionally different."

10.6 Also another coordinate bench in the case of
Cisco Systems (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 66 SOT 82
(Bang) has held as under:

"26.1 Bodhtree Consulting Ltd.:- As far as this
company is concerned, it is not in dispute that in the
list of comparables chosen by the assessee, this
company was also included by the assessee. The
assessee, however, submits before us that later on it
came to the assessee's notice that this company is
not being considered as a comparable company in
the case of companies rendering software
development services. In this regard, the ld. counsel
for the assessee has brought to our notice the
decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the
case of Nethawk Networks (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2014] 41
taxmann.com 250 (Mum - Trib.). In this case, the
Tribunal followed the decision rendered by the

- 15 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wills
Processing Services (I) P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT IT Appeal
No.4547/Mum/2012, dated 13-11-2013. In the
aforesaid decisions, the Tribunal has taken the view
that Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. is in the business of
software products and was engaged in providing
open & end to end web solutions software
consultancy and design & development of software
using latest technology. The decision rendered by the
Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nethawk
Networks (P.) Ltd. (supra) is in relation to A.Y. 2008-
09. It was affirmed by the learned counsel for the
Assessee that the facts and circumstances in the
present year also remains identical to the facts and
circumstances as it prevailed in AY 08-09 as far as
this comparable company is concerned. Following
the aforesaid decision of the Mumbai Bench of the
Tribunal, we hold that Bodhtree Consulting Ltd.
cannot be regarded as a comparable. In this regards,
the fact that the assessee had itself proposed this
company as comparable, in our opinion, should not
be the basis on which the said company should be
retained as a comparable, when factually it is shown
that the said company is a software product company
and not a software development services company."

10.7 Having considered the above, we hold that since
the assessee company is engaged in software
development services; whereas M/s. Bodhtree
Consulting Ltd. was engaged into software product
development, we find force in the argument of the ld
counsel for the assessee that M/s. Bodhtree
Consulting Ltd. is functionally different from assessee
company."

20. The Revenue had filed an appeal against the said decision
before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed on the ground
that it did not give rise to any substantial question of law in

- 16 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fiserv India (P)
8
Ltd .
21. This Court in a recent decision in Commissioner of Income
9
Tax-III v. M/s. Torry Harris Business Solutions Private Limited
has reiterated the said view.
22. We also find that the exclusion of M/s. KALS Information
Systems Limited from the list of comparables is also based on
factual findings that cannot be considered perverse.
23. In Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune v. Principal
10
Global Services (P.) Limited , the Bombay High Court had
upheld the view of the Tribunal that M/s. KALS Information
Systems Limited is not an apposite comparable to a company
engaged in software development services. The Court accepted
that the said company was not comparable with the assessee in
that case, which was engaged in software development services,
for the reason that M/s. KALS Information Systems Limited was

8
[2018] 92 taxmann.com 471 (Delhi)
9
NC: 2026: KHC: 50456-DB
10
[2018] 95 taxmann.com 315 (Bombay)

- 17 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


also engaged in developing software products as well as running a
training centre in the previous year relevant to AY 2009-10.
24. A similar view is also expressed by the Bombay High Court
in Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune v. PTC Software (I)
11
(P.) Limited albeit , in respect of an earlier AY 2007-2008. The
relevant extract is reproduced below:
“10. Re. Question (ii) :-

M/s. KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (KALS Ltd.) and
Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd.
(Helios & Matheson Ltd.) were included by the TPO
in his comparability analysis. The grievance of the
respondent assessee before the Tribunal was that
both are functionally different from the respondent
assessee and, therefore, could not be used as
comparables. The respondent assessee pointed out
that KALS Ltd and Helios & Matheson Ltd. are
engaged in the business of selling of software
products while the respondent assessee renders
software services to its holding company.

The Tribunal in the impugned order records that for
Υ
the preceding assessment year i.e. A. . 2006- 07,
the TPO had found that KALS Ltd. and Helios &
Matheson Ltd. were functionally not comparable with
the respondent assessee. In the subject assessment
year also, on the basis of Annual Report, it was noted
that the KALS was engaged in selling of software
products which is different from the activity
undertaken by the respondent assessee, namely,
rendering of software service to its holding company.
Further, the impugned order also records that no
attempt was even made by the Revenue before it to

11
[2016] 75 taxmann.com 31 (Bombay)

- 18 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


bring on record any change in the nature of activities
carried out by KALS Ltd. and Helios & Matheson Ltd.
in the subject assessment year, making them
functionally comparable to the respondent assessee.
In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal rendered a finding
of fact that KALS Ltd. and Helios & Matheson Ltd. are
not comparable with the respondent assessee.

Even before us, no submissions were advanced
justifying the order of the Assessing Officer that the
services rendered by KALS Ltd. and Helios &
Matheson Ltd. are comparable for the subject
assessment year with that of the respondent
assessee.

In the above view, as the findings of the Tribunal
being one of the fact which has not been shown to be
perverse, the question as proposed does not give
rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not
entertained.”

25. In view of the above, the decision of the learned ITAT to
exclude M/s. Bodhtree Consulting Limited and M/s. KALS
Information Systems Limited as comparables does not give rise to
any substantial question of law.
Re: Question No.2
26. The second question relates to the learned ITAT's decision
to include M/s. Thinksoft Global Services Limited and M/s. FCS
Software Solutions Limited as comparables to the Assessee.

- 19 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


27. It is material to note that the learned TPO had determined
that the said companies were functionally similar to the Assessee.
The learned TPO had excluded the said companies on the ground
that their profit margins were derived from financial activities and
not from their core operating activities. The learned ITAT had
examined the finances of the said companies and had noted that
the profit and loss account of M/s. Thinksoft Global Services
Limited reveals that its revenue from software services was
` 92,09,21,452/-. However, its other income was reflected as
` 3,57,38,801/-. The same included interest received on deposits
with banks amounting to ` 23,71,740/-. The breakup of the other
income is as under:
Interest received on deposits with banks 2,371,740
Interest received from others 543,310
Profit on sale of fixed assets 6,276,773
Exchange gain (Net) 26,536,978
Miscellaneous income 10,000
35,738,801

28. The learned ITAT found that the other income did not arise
from any financial services. Thus, the bulk of the other income
arose from the foreign exchange gain, and its interest income was
only ` 29,15,050/- (23,71,740 + 5,43,310), out of which interest

- 20 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


received from deposits in banks was ` 23,71,740/-. Thus, the other
income did not evidence any significant financial activity. We also
note that the PLI is an operating profit margin and therefore, the
learned ITAT found that there was no ground to exclude the said
company as a comparable which otherwise cleared all filters
selected by the learned TPO.
29. Similarly, the revenue of M/s. FCS Software Solutions
Limited from software development and other services was
` 1,90,25,47,907/- and its miscellaneous income is relatively
insignificant at ` 78,75,588/-. The breakup of the said income is as
under:
Interest 2,875,685
Rent income 4,515,000
Amount W/Back 484,902
7,875,588

30. The learned ITAT had rightly found that the interest income
was ` 28,75,685/- which was insignificant compared to the
revenues which exceeded ` 190 crores. Thus, the said company
could not be excluded on the ground of any financial activity.

- 21 -

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58796-DB
ITA No. 146 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010236692016


31. There is no infirmity in the finding of the learned ITAT that
compared to the revenues from Software Development Services,
the interest received was insignificant. In view of the above, the
learned ITAT had directed inclusion of the said companies on the
basis of its factual findings that the said companies are functionally
similar and comparable to the Assessee. The said findings are
informed by reasons and cannot be considered perverse. Thus,
the learned ITAT's decision directing inclusion of the said two
entities does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
32. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
33. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE


Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE



KPS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11