Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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 :

        2019 (1) TMI 1895 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        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

        Tribunal Excludes Companies from Comparable Set for Transfer Pricing The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Acropatel Technologies Ltd., E-Infochips Ltd., Wipro Technology Solutions Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd., and ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Tribunal Excludes Companies from Comparable Set for Transfer Pricing

                          The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Acropatel Technologies Ltd., E-Infochips Ltd., Wipro Technology Solutions Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd., and Sasken Communication Technologies from the final set of comparables for Transfer Pricing purposes. The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed, with certain grounds dismissed. The Transfer Pricing Officer's proposed adjustment of Rs. 1,10,21,853/- was upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel, impacting the final assessment order. The Tribunal's decision will require a revised computation of the Arm's Length Price and adjustment amount.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Inclusion and exclusion of certain companies in the final set of comparables for Transfer Pricing (TP) purposes.
                          2. Re-characterization of services provided by the assessee.
                          3. Application of filters by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
                          4. Adjustment proposed by the TPO and upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Inclusion and Exclusion of Certain Companies in the Final Set of Comparables:

                          The primary issue raised by the assessee pertains to the inclusion and exclusion of certain companies by the TPO in the final set of comparables for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions. The assessee objected to the inclusion of Acropatel Technologies Ltd., E-Infochips Ltd., Wipro Technology Solutions Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd., and Sasken Communication Technologies, arguing functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental data.

                          Acropatel Technologies Ltd.:
                          The TPO included this company, but the assessee contended it is functionally dissimilar due to its diversified activities, including high-end healthcare services and sale of software products. The Tribunal observed that Acropatel Technologies Ltd. is engaged in high-end healthcare services and owns related intellectual property, leading to higher profitability. The company also has two business segments without available segmental profitability in audited financial statements. Thus, the Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude Acropatel Technologies Ltd. from the list of comparables.

                          E-Infochips Ltd.:
                          The TPO included this company, considering its income from software development and IT services. However, the assessee argued functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental data. The Tribunal found that E-Infochips Ltd. has operating revenue from software development, hardware maintenance, consultancy, etc., without segmental information available. Since the assessee is engaged in rendering software development services without selling software products, the Tribunal ordered the exclusion of E-Infochips Ltd. from the comparables.

                          Wipro Technology Solutions Ltd.:
                          The TPO included this company despite the assessee's objections regarding functional differences, insufficient segmental information, and significant related party transactions. The Tribunal noted that Wipro Technology Services Ltd. earned revenue from a master service agreement between its parent company, Wipro Ltd., and Citigroup Inc., making it an international transaction under section 92B(2). Consequently, it is not an uncontrolled transaction and should be excluded from the comparables.

                          Infosys Technologies Ltd.:
                          The Tribunal observed that Infosys Technologies Ltd. was excluded in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years and by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude Infosys Technologies Ltd. from the list of comparables, following the same precedent.

                          Sasken Communication Technologies:
                          The TPO included this company, but the assessee argued it is engaged in the sale of software products and owns branded products and IPR, making it functionally dissimilar. The Tribunal noted that Sasken Communication Technologies generates revenue from software services/products without segmental financials available. Thus, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of Sasken Communication Technologies from the final list of comparables.

                          2. Re-characterization of Services Provided by the Assessee:

                          The assessee did not object to the re-characterization of its services as a ‘software development service provider’ by the TPO. Consequently, the grounds related to this issue were dismissed as not pressed.

                          3. Application of Filters by the TPO:

                          The TPO applied several filters, including the use of current year data, export sales filters, different financial year ending filter, exclusion of very small companies, and persistent loss-making companies. The assessee objected to the comparables selected based on these filters, leading to the exclusion of certain companies as discussed above.

                          4. Adjustment Proposed by the TPO and Upheld by the DRP:

                          The TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs. 1,10,21,853/- in the hands of the assessee, which was upheld by the DRP. The final assessment order included this addition. The Tribunal's decision to exclude certain comparables will impact the final adjustment amount.

                          Conclusion:

                          The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Acropatel Technologies Ltd., E-Infochips Ltd., Wipro Technology Solutions Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd., and Sasken Communication Technologies from the final set of comparables. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, with specific grounds dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal's decision will necessitate a revised computation of the ALP and corresponding adjustment.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found