TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Decision on International Tax Dispute: ALP, Comparables, Forward Contracts, Working Capital</h1> <h3>DCIT, Circle-2 (1), Hyderabad Versus M/s. Infor (India) Private Limited.</h3> DCIT, Circle-2 (1), Hyderabad Versus M/s. Infor (India) Private Limited. - TMI Issues:1. Revenue's appeal against the order of the AO under the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Determination of ALP for international transactions by the TPO.3. Exclusion of certain companies as comparables by the DRP.4. Treatment of forward contracts in the company's operations.5. Base rate vs. PLR for working capital adjustment.Analysis:1. The case involved the Revenue's appeal against the AO's order for the A.Y. 2011-2012 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue challenged the relief granted to the assessee by the DRP, raising multiple grounds of appeal related to the selection of comparables and adjustments made by the TPO.2. The TPO determined the ALP for the assessee's international transactions and proposed adjustments. The TPO found defects in the assessee's search process, leading to the selection of inappropriate comparables. The TPO conducted an independent analysis using TNMM, resulting in proposed adjustments. The assessee objected to certain companies selected as comparables by the TPO.3. The DRP granted relief to the assessee by excluding specific companies from the final list of comparables, such as Accentia, Acropetal, eClerx, Infosys, and TCS. The Revenue contested the exclusion, arguing that functional differences were not adequately considered. The DRP's decision was based on the functional dissimilarities of the services provided by the excluded companies compared to the assessee.4. Regarding the treatment of forward contracts in the company's operations, the DRP directed the exclusion of a company engaged in forward contracts. The DRP considered the influence of forward contracts on the company's margin and directed its exclusion. The assessee agreed to consider this company as a comparable if the correct margin was taken into account.5. The dispute over the base rate vs. PLR for working capital adjustment was addressed. The DRP directed the adoption of the average prime lending rate of SBI for computing working capital adjustments, contrary to the TPO's decision. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision supporting the use of PLR for such adjustments, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal on this ground.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, considering various aspects of the ALP determination, selection of comparables, treatment of forward contracts, and working capital adjustment methodologies.This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the Tribunal's decision on each matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
