Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal directs exclusion of companies from comparables list & verification of working capital adjustment</h1> <h3>BA Continuum India Private Limited [Previously known as BA Continuum Solutions Private Limited] Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Hyderabad</h3> BA Continuum India Private Limited [Previously known as BA Continuum Solutions Private Limited] Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, ... Issues Involved:1. Selection of comparable companies for Transfer Pricing (TP) analysis.2. Calculation of working capital adjustment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Selection of Comparable Companies for Transfer Pricing (TP) Analysis:Accentia Technologies Limited (Accentia):The assessee contended that Accentia had extraordinary business operations during the year, including business restructuring and peculiar economic circumstances, and a low employee cost percentage. The TPO and CIT(A) rejected these contentions. The assessee relied on several judicial precedents to argue that Accentia should be excluded as a comparable. The Tribunal, following the decision in Hyundai Motors India Engineering P. Ltd. vs. ITO, agreed with the assessee and directed the exclusion of Accentia from the list of comparables due to extraordinary events impacting its financial results.Coral Hub Limited (formerly Vishal Information Technologies Limited):The assessee argued that Coral Hub was functionally different as it primarily outsourced its work, unlike the assessee. The TPO and CIT(A) did not accept this argument. The assessee cited judicial precedents to support the exclusion of Coral Hub. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, found Coral Hub to be engaged in e-publishing and document scanning, which are not comparable to the assessee's services. Hence, Coral Hub was excluded from the list of comparables.Eclerx Services Limited (Eclerx):The assessee claimed that Eclerx was functionally different, providing high-end KPO services and experiencing an extraordinary situation due to a merger. The TPO and CIT(A) rejected these claims. The Tribunal, citing the decision in Hyundai Motors India Engineering P. Ltd. vs. ITO, agreed that Eclerx's services and the extraordinary events warranted its exclusion as a comparable.Mold-tek Technologies Limited (Moldtek):The assessee argued that Moldtek was functionally different, providing engineering design services, and had undergone mergers and demergers during the year. The TPO and CIT(A) did not accept these arguments. The Tribunal, following the decision in Symphony Marketing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, found Moldtek's services and extraordinary events justified its exclusion from the list of comparables.Genesys International Corporation Limited (Genesys):The assessee contended that Genesys was functionally different, providing Geographical Information Services, and had abnormal growth. The TPO and CIT(A) rejected these claims. The Tribunal, referencing the decision in Hyundai Motors India Engineering P. Ltd. vs. ITO, agreed that Genesys's services and abnormal growth warranted its exclusion as a comparable.2. Calculation of Working Capital Adjustment:The assessee argued that the TPO made an arithmetical error in calculating the average receivables, leading to an erroneous working capital adjustment. The CIT(A) upheld the TPO's calculation. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to verify the correctness of the working capital adjustment claimed by the assessee and to compute the ALP after making necessary corrections. The Tribunal emphasized that the correct working capital adjustment could bring the assessee's margin within the permissible range, potentially eliminating the need for a TP adjustment.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables and the verification and correction of the working capital adjustment calculation. The Tribunal's order emphasized adherence to judicial precedents and accurate computation of adjustments to ensure compliance with the arm's length principle.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found