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.
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>Tribunal Upholds Deletion of Rs. 1.36 Cr ALP Adjustment; Excludes Indusind IT Ltd as Comparable for BPO Assessment.</h1> <h3>ACIT, Circle-14 (1), Kolkata Versus M/s Acclaris Business Solutions (P) Ltd.</h3> The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the Rs. 1,36,61,522/- adjustment to the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Tribunal upheld ... TP Adjustment - adjustment to Arm’s Length Price - comparable selection - whether the exclusion of one comparable company i.e Indusind Information Technology Ltd by the ld CITA is in order? - HELD THAT:- In assessee’s own case [2015 (6) TMI 677 - ITAT KOLKATA] for the immediately preceding assessment year, we hold that the said comparable i.e M/s Indusind Information Technology Ltd has been rightly excluded by the ld CITA considering the entirely different functional profile and hence not comparable with the assessee company as the said comparable was mainly into providing management consultancy services on information technology matters. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Justification of the deletion of Rs. 1,36,61,522/- towards adjustment to Arm’s Length Price (ALP).Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of the deletion of Rs. 1,36,61,522/- towards adjustment to Arm’s Length Price (ALP)Background and Facts:- The appeal by the Revenue arises from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata, against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Kolkata, for the Assessment Year 2008-09.- The assessee is a domestic company and a 98% subsidiary of Acclaris Inc., providing Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) services.- For the Assessment Year 2008-09, the assessee filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs. 56,828/- after claiming deductions under sections 10A and 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- The assessee provided BPO services to its parent company, resulting in international transactions amounting to Rs. 14,36,38,836/-.- The assessee adopted the book value of the international transaction as the ALP in its Transfer Pricing (TP) study report, using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) with Operating Profit / Total Cost (OP/TC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI).Revenue's Contention:- The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who observed that the assessee used multiple-year data and included loss-making companies and companies with significant turnover variations as comparables.- The TPO applied specific filters and included Indusind Information Technology Ltd as a comparable, determining an upward adjustment of Rs. 1,36,61,522/- to the ALP.Assessee's Argument:- The assessee argued that the exclusion of Indusind Information Technology Ltd as a comparable was justified as the company was primarily into software development, unlike the assessee engaged in BPO services.- The assessee contended that if this one comparable was excluded, the price charged would be within the Arm’s Length range.Tribunal's Findings:- The Tribunal noted that the TNMM was the MAM adopted by both parties and that there was no dispute regarding the adoption of OP/TC as the PLI.- The Tribunal focused on whether the exclusion of Indusind Information Technology Ltd as a comparable was justified.- The Tribunal referenced its decision in the assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2007-08, where it was held that the business model of Indusind Information Technology Ltd was not comparable to that of the assessee.- It was observed that the software development company had a completely different functional profile, risk, and asset base compared to a BPO service provider.- The Tribunal cited similar cases where companies engaged in software development were excluded as comparables for BPO service providers.Conclusion:- The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Indusind Information Technology Ltd as a comparable, agreeing that the company was not functionally comparable to the assessee.- Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the Rs. 1,36,61,522/- adjustment to the ALP.Order Pronouncement:- The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the Court on 14.09.2018.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found