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

        Tribunal excludes dissimilar comparables, upholds turnover filter, and working capital adjustments. Revenue's appeal dismissed.

        M/s. Logitech Engineering & Design India P. Ltd, (erstwhile M/s. Lifesize Communication P. Ltd), Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 4 (1) (1), Bengaluru and vice-versa

        M/s. Logitech Engineering & Design India P. Ltd, (erstwhile M/s. Lifesize Communication P. Ltd), Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 4 (1) ... Issues Involved:
        1. Selection of comparables for benchmarking software development services.
        2. Selection of comparables for benchmarking market support services.
        3. Application of turnover filter and related party transactions (RPT) filter.
        4. Working capital adjustment.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Selection of Comparables for Benchmarking Software Development Services:

        The assessee, a captive service provider, benchmarked its software development services using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and selected four comparables, arriving at an average Net Operating Margin of 13.01%. The TPO rejected three of these comparables and introduced ten new ones, determining an average margin of 22.71%, resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 72,25,614. The DRP upheld the TPO's rejection of the assessee's comparables but retained only one of the TPO's comparables after applying various filters.

        The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Kals Information System Ltd (seg) as it was functionally different, engaged in software development and sale of software products, and lacked segmental information for software development services. The Tribunal also directed the inclusion of RS Software (India) Ltd and Thinksoft Global Services Ltd, as their RPT was within the acceptable range of 15%.

        2. Selection of Comparables for Benchmarking Market Support Services:

        For market support services, the assessee used TNMM and selected four comparables, arriving at an average Return On Asset Employed (ROAE) of 20.79%. The TPO rejected these comparables, introduced four new ones, and determined an arm's length mean margin of 17.21%, resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 72,25,514. The DRP upheld the TPO's rejection but retained two of the TPO's comparables.

        The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Cyber Media Research Ltd and Killick Agencies due to functional differences. Cyber Media was engaged in market research and management consultancy, while Killick Agencies acted as an agent for foreign principals and did not meet the export revenue filter applied by the TPO.

        3. Application of Turnover Filter and Related Party Transactions (RPT) Filter:

        The Tribunal upheld the DRP's exclusion of several comparables based on their significantly higher turnovers compared to the assessee. These included Infosys Ltd, Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mindtree Ltd (seg), Persistent Systems Ltd, Sasken Communication Technologies, and Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg). The Tribunal emphasized that the size, functions performed, and business cycle stages of these companies were not comparable to the assessee, a low-risk captive service provider.

        The Tribunal also addressed the RPT filter, directing the inclusion of RS Software (India) Ltd and Thinksoft Global Services Ltd, as their RPT was 0.96% and 11.09%, respectively, within the acceptable range of 15%.

        4. Working Capital Adjustment:

        The Tribunal directed the TPO to allow actual adjustments towards differences in working capital positions between the assessee and the comparables, following the precedent set in Moong Controls India P Ltd.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the exclusion of certain functionally dissimilar comparables and the inclusion of others within acceptable RPT ranges. It also upheld the DRP's application of the turnover filter and directed the TPO to allow working capital adjustments. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found