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 allows appeal: excludes comparables, allows interest deduction on unsecured loan

        Proseed India Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Green Fire Agri Commodities Ltd) Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 2 (2), Hyderabad.

        Proseed India Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Green Fire Agri Commodities Ltd) Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 2 (2), Hyderabad. - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
        2. Disallowance of Interest on Unsecured Loan

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:

        Background:
        The assessee, engaged in ITES, filed its return for AY 2011-12 declaring a loss. The case was selected for scrutiny due to international transactions exceeding Rs. 15 crores, and referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for Arm's Length Price determination.

        Economic Analysis by Assessee:
        The assessee used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to benchmark its international transactions, selecting seven comparables with an average PLI (OP/TC) of 14.04% against its margin of 15.58%.

        TPO's Analysis:
        The TPO rejected the assessee's comparables, stating the search process was not in conformity with TP regulations. The TPO selected 13 new comparables with an average PLI of 25.73%, resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 90,24,561.

        Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) Decision:
        The DRP directed the exclusion of seven comparables. However, the mean margin of the remaining comparables still resulted in the same adjustment. The assessee appealed against the inclusion of three comparables: Accentia Technologies Ltd., Crossdomain Solutions P. Ltd., and eClerx Services Ltd.

        Tribunal's Decision:
        - Accentia Technologies Ltd.: Excluded due to functional dissimilarity and high turnover, supported by precedents like S&P Capital IQ (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT.
        - Crossdomain Solutions P. Ltd.: Excluded due to diversified services and lack of segmental data, supported by cases like Symphony Marketing Solutions.
        - eClerx Services Ltd.: Excluded as it provides high-end KPO services, supported by cases like S&P Capital IQ (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT.

        The Tribunal directed the TPO to rework the PLI excluding these comparables.

        Informed Technologies Ltd., Microgenetics Ltd., and Cosmic Global Ltd.:
        The Tribunal upheld the DRP's exclusion of these comparables due to significant subcontracting and failing the service revenue filter.

        Tolerance Band:
        The Tribunal directed the TPO to extend the benefit of the +/- 5% tolerance band to the assessee as per TP guidelines.

        2. Disallowance of Interest on Unsecured Loan:

        Background:
        The AO disallowed Rs. 62,23,081/- of interest on an unsecured loan taken from a subsidiary, arguing it was not used for the assessee's business but invested in wholly-owned subsidiaries.

        Assessee's Argument:
        The assessee contended the loan was for business purposes, citing the Delhi High Court decision in EKL Appliances and the Hyderabad Tribunal decision in Hill County Properties Ltd. v. ACIT.

        Tribunal's Decision:
        The Tribunal distinguished the assessee's case from the cases cited by the DR, noting the funds were invested in foreign subsidiaries, which is a business decision. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in SA Builders, allowing the interest deduction as the investment was for business purposes.

        Conclusion:
        The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the exclusion of certain comparables for transfer pricing and allowing the interest deduction on the unsecured loan.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found