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 deletes adjustment to Arm's Length Price for shared services, emphasizing necessity and benefits.

        M/s Ipsos Research Pvt. Ltd. (in which Synovate India Private Limited has been amalgamated) Versus ACIT-2 (2) (1), Mumbai

        M/s Ipsos Research Pvt. Ltd. (in which Synovate India Private Limited has been amalgamated) Versus ACIT-2 (2) (1), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:
        Adjustment of Rs. 7,50,68,892/- to Arm's Length Price (ALP) for shared services under the Cost Contribution Arrangement.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Background and Transaction Details:
        The assessee is a market research company part of Aegis Group PLC, U.K., and was involved in various international transactions, including market research services rendered and received, cost contribution arrangements, and reimbursements of expenses. The primary issue is the adjustment of Rs. 7,50,68,892/- to ALP for shared services under the Cost Contribution Arrangement, which was benchmarked using the Internal Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM).

        2. TPO's Analysis and Queries:
        The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) directed the assessee to justify the payment for management charges under the cost contribution arrangement by providing detailed information on various aspects such as the nature of services, beneficiaries, cost allocation, evidence of services rendered, and the benefits derived. The assessee provided responses, including the Shared Resources Allocation Agreement, which detailed the services and cost allocation mechanism.

        3. TPO's Findings:
        The TPO concluded that the assessee failed to demonstrate that services were rendered or received, quantify the benefits derived, and show what an independent entity would be willing to pay for such services. Consequently, the TPO determined the ALP for the shared services at NIL.

        4. DRP's Confirmation:
        The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the TPO's findings, emphasizing that the assessee did not provide adequate evidence to substantiate the receipt of services and the benefits derived therefrom. The DRP also noted that the assessee failed to benchmark the international transactions of intra-group services properly.

        5. Assessee's Arguments:
        The assessee argued that the intra-group services were commercially expedient, and exact quantification of services was neither possible nor necessary. The assessee also contended that since the entity-level margin was at ALP, no TP adjustment was required. The assessee provided a detailed write-up on the group's operations and the necessity of shared services for maintaining efficiency and uniformity in quality.

        6. Tribunal's Observations:
        The Tribunal noted that the assessee had adopted Internal TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) based on segmental data, which was duly audited and submitted to the TPO. The Tribunal found that the income earned from services rendered under the Shared Resources Allocation Agreement was accepted by the TPO to be at ALP. However, the TPO's determination of ALP at NIL for the payment made under the same agreement was contradictory.

        7. Tribunal's Conclusion:
        The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated the need and benefits of the shared services, and the TPO's conclusion that no services were rendered was incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized that the TPO cannot sit in judgment over the benefit claimed to have been received by the assessee from the services received. The Tribunal directed the TPO to delete the entire adjustment of Rs. 7,50,68,892/- made towards the payment of cost contribution charges under the Shared Resources Allocation Agreement.

        8. Judicial Precedents:
        The Tribunal referred to various judicial decisions supporting the assessee's contention that the TPO cannot question the commercial expediency of the transaction and that the benefit derived from the services cannot always be quantified in monetary terms.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the adjustment made to the ALP for the shared services under the Cost Contribution Arrangement. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity and benefits of the shared services and the inconsistency in the TPO's findings.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found