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 grants appeal, excludes comparables, includes R Systems, reconsiders adjustments

        BT e- Serv (India) (P.) Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5 (2), New Delhi

        BT e- Serv (India) (P.) Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5 (2), New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:

        1. Transfer pricing adjustment and selection of comparables.
        2. Denial of working capital adjustment.
        3. Transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on receivables.
        4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment and Selection of Comparables:

        The assessee challenged the inclusion of certain companies as comparables and sought the exclusion of Infosys BPO Limited, BNR Udyog Limited, Eclerx Services Limited, Excel Infoways Limited, and TCS e-Serv Ltd. The assessee also sought the inclusion of R Systems International Limited (Segmental).

        - Infosys BPO Limited: The Tribunal found that Infosys BPO Limited was functionally dissimilar to the assessee as it provided high-end integrated services, had significant brand value, and incurred substantial brand-building and advertisement expenses. Following the decision in Baxter India (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal directed the exclusion of Infosys BPO Limited from the final set of comparables.

        - BNR Udyog Limited: The Tribunal noted that BNR Udyog Limited was involved in medical transcription services and had substantial Related Party Transactions (RPT). The Tribunal directed the exclusion of BNR Udyog Limited from the final set of comparables, citing functional dissimilarity and non-availability of segmental results.

        - Eclerx Services Limited: The Tribunal found that Eclerx Services Limited was engaged in Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) services and was functionally different from the assessee. Following the decision in Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal directed the exclusion of Eclerx Services Limited.

        - Excel Infoways Limited: The Tribunal noted that Excel Infoways Limited was functionally dissimilar, failed the employee cost filter, and had diminishing revenue. Following the decision in Baxter India (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal directed the exclusion of Excel Infoways Limited.

        - TCS e-Serv Ltd.: The Tribunal found that TCS e-Serv Ltd. provided KPO services and was functionally dissimilar to the assessee. Following the decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of TCS e-Serv Ltd.

        - R Systems International Limited (Segmental): The Tribunal directed the inclusion of R Systems International Limited (Segmental) after verifying the relevant financial information, following the decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12.

        2. Denial of Working Capital Adjustment:

        The assessee contended that the TPO/AO rejected the working capital adjustment claim without pointing out any defects in the computation. The Tribunal noted that the working capital adjustment claim had been submitted before the TPO/AO and was rejected without assigning any reason. The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to consider the claim afresh after examining the computation and giving due opportunity to the assessee.

        3. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Account of Interest on Receivables:

        The assessee challenged the adjustment made by the TPO on account of interest on receivables, arguing that outstanding receivables should not be considered a separate international transaction. The Tribunal noted that this issue had been decided against the assessee in its own case for AY 2010-11. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to re-examine the issue after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.

        4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):

        The Tribunal did not specifically address the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) in its detailed analysis. The final result of the appeal was that it was allowed in terms of the observations contained in the preceding paragraphs.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the exclusion of certain comparables, inclusion of R Systems International Limited (Segmental), reconsideration of the working capital adjustment claim, and re-examination of the transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on receivables. The Tribunal's decision was based on detailed analysis and adherence to precedents set in similar cases.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found