Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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

        <h1>High Court upholds tax deduction, risk adjustment, and considers Infosys BPO as comparable entity.</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, New Delhi Versus Symphony Marketing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Genpact India)</h3> The High Court dismissed the appeal related to the deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, upheld the risk adjustment by the Dispute Resolution ... Computation of deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- The assessee had deducted certain expenditure from its export turnover. AO held that it ought to have been deducted from the total turnover and not from the export turnover. ITAT reversed the AO’s determination based upon a decision in the case of ‘CIT vs. Genpact India’ [2011 (11) TMI 119 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises on this aspect Quantum of the risk adjustment - Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had modified from the initial 1% determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) - HELD THAT:- ITAT upheld the DRP’s determination holding that the AO had to amend the draft assessment order after the DRP’s adjustment. This Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order of the ITAT. The DRP’s mechanism is an administrative and corrective process entitling the assessee to insist upon a second look in regard to the issues decided in the TPO’s report. Therefore, its decisions are binding and a part of the decision making process of the AO. Prior to the amendment in 2012, no appeal was made against the determinations of the TRP. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. Exclusion of one comparable i.e. Infosys BPO - HELD THAT:- The Court is of the opinion that there is some merits in the Revenue’s submissions. Issues Involved:1. Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act2. Quantum of risk adjustment by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)3. Exclusion of Infosys BPO as a comparableIssue 1: Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act:The case involved a dispute regarding the deduction of certain expenditure from the export turnover under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the expenditure should have been deducted from the total turnover, not the export turnover. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) disagreed with the AO's decision based on a precedent. The High Court held that no question of law arose in this aspect and dismissed the appeal related to this issue.Issue 2: Quantum of Risk Adjustment by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP):The second issue raised was related to the quantum of the risk adjustment modified by the DRP from the initial 1% determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The ITAT upheld the DRP's decision, stating that the AO was required to amend the assessment order post the DRP's adjustment. The High Court affirmed the ITAT's decision, emphasizing that the DRP's role is to provide an administrative and corrective process allowing the assessee to seek a review of the TPO's determinations. The Court noted that the DRP's decisions are binding and form part of the AO's decision-making process. It was highlighted that prior to a 2012 amendment, no appeals were made against the TRP's determinations, and thus, the impugned order was upheld.Issue 3: Exclusion of Infosys BPO as a Comparable:The third issue pertained to the exclusion of Infosys BPO as a comparable entity. The High Court acknowledged the merits in the Revenue's submissions regarding this exclusion. Consequently, the appeal related to this matter was admitted for further consideration. The Court framed the question of law for this appeal as whether the ITAT erred in excluding Infosys BPO from the list of comparables, considering the circumstances of the case. Notice of the appeal was issued to the assessee, returnable on a specified date.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the three main issues raised in the case, outlining the arguments, decisions, and reasoning provided by the High Court for each matter.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found