Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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

        Appeal partially allowed: exclusions & inclusions ordered, Transfer Pricing Officer to adjust comparables accordingly.

        Swiss Re Shared Services (India) P. Ltd. Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6 (1) (2), Bangalore

        Swiss Re Shared Services (India) P. Ltd. Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6 (1) (2), Bangalore - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments.
        2. Exclusion of Comparable Companies.
        3. Errors in Computing Operating Margin.
        4. Inclusion of Foreign Exchange Gains/Losses as Operating in Nature.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Transfer Pricing Adjustments:
        The primary issue in this appeal concerns the transfer pricing adjustments recommended by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee, engaged in IT-enabled back-office services, had computed its Profit Level Indicator (PLI) using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted four of the assessee's comparables and added six more, resulting in a final list of ten comparables. The TPO recommended a final adjustment of Rs. 690,32,747 under Section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

        2. Exclusion of Comparable Companies:
        The assessee sought the exclusion of four companies from the list of comparables: Accentia Technologies Ltd, Acropetal Technologies (seg), ICRA Online Ltd (seg), and Jeevan Scientific Technology Ltd (seg).

        Accentia Technologies Ltd:
        The assessee argued that Accentia Technologies Ltd had undergone inorganic growth and engaged in high-end medical transcription services, which were not comparable to the low-end services provided by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed, noting that Accentia's services were of a high-end variety and involved significant coding and medical transcription activities, which were not comparable to the assessee's insurance-related services. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Accentia Technologies Ltd from the list of comparables.

        Acropetal Technologies Ltd (seg):
        The assessee contended that Acropetal Technologies Ltd was involved in engineering design services, which were not comparable to the assessee's ITES services. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the engineering design services provided by Acropetal were not comparable to the back-office support services rendered by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd (seg) from the list of comparables.

        ICRA Online Ltd (seg):
        The assessee argued that ICRA Online Ltd was engaged in knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) services, which required a higher level of expertise compared to the assessee's low-end ITES services. The Tribunal, however, found that the level of expertise used by ICRA Online Ltd was reasonably comparable to that of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of ICRA Online Ltd (seg) in the list of comparables.

        Jeevan Scientific Technology Ltd (seg):
        The assessee pointed out that the turnover of the BPO segment of Jeevan Scientific Technology Ltd was less than Rs. 1 crore, which should have led to its exclusion based on the TPO's own criteria. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration, directing that if the turnover of the BPO segment was indeed less than Rs. 1 crore, the company should be excluded from the list of comparables.

        3. Errors in Computing Operating Margin:
        The assessee sought corrections in the computation of the operating margin of the comparables. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to rework the PLI of the comparables after including the foreign exchange gain/loss, as directed by the DRP.

        4. Inclusion of Foreign Exchange Gains/Losses as Operating in Nature:
        The DRP had directed the AO/TPO to consider foreign exchange gains/losses as operating in nature for the TP analysis. The Tribunal upheld this direction, noting that the Revenue had not appealed against it and, therefore, the AO/TPO had no option but to follow the DRP's directions.

        Conclusion:
        The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific directions for the exclusion of certain comparables and the inclusion of foreign exchange gains/losses as operating in nature. The AO/TPO was directed to rework the PLI of the comparables accordingly.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found