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, directing reconsideration of comparables & deletion of TP adjustment in book profits calculation.

        M/s. Berkadia Services India Private Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(3), Hyderabad

        M/s. Berkadia Services India Private Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(3), Hyderabad - [2014] 35 ITR (Trib) 446 (ITAT [Hyd]) Issues Involved:
        1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for IT enabled back office services.
        2. Rejection of the assessee's Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation.
        3. Rejection of comparability analysis by the assessee.
        4. Selection of inappropriate comparables by the TPO.
        5. Use of data available at the time of assessment instead of at the time of TP documentation.
        6. Ignoring the limited risk nature of the services provided by the assessee.
        7. Adjustment for the difference in depreciation rates.
        8. Addition of TP adjustment while determining book profits under Section 115JB of the Act.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for IT enabled back office services:
        The assessee, engaged in providing IT enabled back office services, filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 15,39,573 after claiming a deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed transactions with the holding company and referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the ALP. The TPO found defects in the method adopted by the assessee for selecting comparables, leading to the selection of inappropriate comparables. The TPO selected 12 comparables, resulting in an Arithmetic Mean margin of 27.42%. After adjustments, the ALP was determined, leading to a TP adjustment of Rs. 1,83,11,450.

        2. Rejection of the assessee's Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation:
        The assessee's TP documentation was rejected by the TPO, who conducted a fresh comparability analysis. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's decision, leading to the final assessment order including the TP adjustment.

        3. Rejection of comparability analysis by the assessee:
        The assessee challenged the comparables selected by the TPO. The Tribunal heard arguments and reviewed relevant material, including decisions from coordinate benches. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to reconsider the selection of certain comparables, following decisions in similar cases.

        4. Selection of inappropriate comparables by the TPO:
        The Tribunal examined the inclusion/exclusion of six specific comparables:
        - Accentia Technologies Limited (Seg): The Tribunal restored this issue to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration, following the decision in the assessee's own case for the previous year.
        - Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg): Excluded by the Tribunal as it was found functionally different.
        - Cosmic Global Ltd.: Issue restored to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration, following previous decisions.
        - Eclerx Services Ltd.: Excluded by the Tribunal as it was found functionally different.
        - Genesys International Ltd.: Issue restored to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration, following previous decisions.
        - Infosys BPO: Excluded by the Tribunal due to its incomparable size of operations, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case.

        5. Use of data available at the time of assessment instead of at the time of TP documentation:
        The Tribunal did not find it necessary to decide on this issue as it would become academic if the ALP falls within the range of +/-5%.

        6. Ignoring the limited risk nature of the services provided by the assessee:
        The Tribunal did not address this issue separately, as it would become academic if the ALP falls within the range of +/-5%.

        7. Adjustment for the difference in depreciation rates:
        The Tribunal did not address this issue separately, as it would become academic if the ALP falls within the range of +/-5%.

        8. Addition of TP adjustment while determining book profits under Section 115JB of the Act:
        The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of TP adjustment while determining the book profit under Section 115JB is not sustainable, following the Supreme Court's decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. The addition was deleted.

        Conclusion:
        The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to reconsider the selection of certain comparables and recompute the ALP. The addition on account of TP adjustment while determining book profits under Section 115JB was deleted.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found