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 / 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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2022 (2) TMI 1353 - 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 high-turnover companies from comparable list in transfer pricing analysis, emphasizes turnover relevance. The Tribunal directed the Tax Authorities to compute the Arms' Length Price (ALP) for Software Development Services, excluding companies with turnover ...
                      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 high-turnover companies from comparable list in transfer pricing analysis, emphasizes turnover relevance.

                          The Tribunal directed the Tax Authorities to compute the Arms' Length Price (ALP) for Software Development Services, excluding companies with turnover exceeding Rs. 200 Crores from the list of comparable companies. The Assessee's appeal was partly allowed, emphasizing the relevance of turnover as a criterion for comparability in transfer pricing analysis.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Determination of Arms' Length Price (ALP) for Software Development Services.
                          2. Selection of Comparable Companies for Transfer Pricing Analysis.
                          3. Application of Turnover Filter in Comparability Analysis.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Determination of Arms' Length Price (ALP) for Software Development Services:

                          The Assessee, engaged in providing Software Development Services (SWD services) to its wholly owned holding company, filed a Transfer Pricing Study (TP Study) to justify the price paid in the international transaction as at ALP by adopting the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM). The Assessee selected Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for comparison. The OP/OC of the Assessee was 15.95%, with an operating income of Rs. 1,21,34,35,876 and an operating cost of Rs. 1,05,51,61,631. The Assessee identified 8 comparable companies with an average arithmetic mean of profit margin comparable to its own.

                          The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted TNMM as the MAM and the same PLI but identified additional comparable companies, arriving at a set of 16 comparable companies with a reworked PLI of 27.37%. The TPO computed the addition to total income on account of adjustment to ALP as Rs. 12,05,05,346, which was added to the Assessee's total income.

                          2. Selection of Comparable Companies for Transfer Pricing Analysis:

                          The main grievance of the Assessee was the choice of comparable companies by the TPO, affirmed by the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP). The Assessee argued for the exclusion of certain companies based on the turnover filter. Specifically, the Assessee sought the exclusion of companies with entirely different functional and risk profiles, such as Tata Elxsi Limited, Mindtree Limited, RS Software (India) Limited, Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited, Infobeans Technologies Limited, Persistent Systems Limited, Nihilent Technologies Limited, Aspire Systems (India) Private Limited, Inteq Software Private Limited, and Infosys Limited.

                          The Assessee eventually narrowed its request to exclude only 7 companies. The DRP, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, held that high turnover does not automatically exclude a company from being a comparable if it is otherwise comparable on a functional analysis.

                          3. Application of Turnover Filter in Comparability Analysis:

                          The Tribunal examined the issue of applying the turnover filter and considered several decisions from the ITAT Bangalore Benches. It noted that the ITAT Bangalore Bench in Dell International Services India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT supported the exclusion of companies with high turnover compared to the Assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessee's turnover was around Rs. 110 Crores, and thus, companies with turnover exceeding Rs. 200 Crores should be excluded from the list of comparable companies.

                          The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of companies with high turnover, following the principle that where two views are available, the view favorable to the Assessee should be adopted. It cited the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., which supported the relevance of turnover as a criterion for comparability.

                          Conclusion:

                          The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to compute the ALP of the international transaction of rendering SWD services by the Assessee to its AE, excluding the companies with turnover exceeding Rs. 200 Crores from the list of comparable companies. The appeal by the Assessee was partly allowed.
                          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