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

        <h1>TPO directed to exclude five companies from comparables for transfer pricing analysis due to functional dissimilarity</h1> <h3>M/s. Kodiak Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4 (1) (1), Bangalore.</h3> M/s. Kodiak Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4 (1) (1), Bangalore. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Exclusion of comparables in the software development services segment.2. Negative working capital adjustment in the software development services segment.3. Exclusion of comparables in the ITES segment.4. Negative working capital adjustment in the ITES segment.5. Disallowance of software expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.6. Addition of provision for loyalty bonus while computing book profits under Section 115JB.Detailed Analysis:1. Exclusion of Comparables in the Software Development Services Segment:The assessee argued that four companies (Genesys International Corporation Limited, Infosys Limited, L&T InfoTech Limited, and Persistent Systems Limited) should be excluded from the list of comparables for the software development services segment due to functional dissimilarity and turnover criteria. The Tribunal found:- Genesys International Corporation Limited: Turnover of Rs.96.09 Crores and engaged in geographical information services. The DRP's order was cryptic, and the issue was remitted to the DRP for a speaking order.- Infosys Limited: Turnover of Rs.31,255 Crores with global brand and intangible assets, functionally different. Excluded based on the turnover filter criteria.- L&T InfoTech Limited: Turnover of Rs.2,959 Crores, substantial onsite operations, high brand value. Excluded based on the turnover filter criteria.- Persistent Systems Limited: Turnover of Rs.810 Crores, high R&D expenses, amalgamation, and extraordinary events. Excluded based on the turnover filter criteria.2. Negative Working Capital Adjustment in the Software Development Services Segment:The assessee argued against the negative working capital adjustment. The Tribunal found that the TPO computed the arithmetic mean margin on cost at 22.63% with a negative working capital adjustment of -1.31%, resulting in an adjusted margin of 23.84%. The Tribunal, relying on the decision in Tecnotree Convergence Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, held that there was no merit in the assessee's claim and dismissed this ground.3. Exclusion of Comparables in the ITES Segment:The assessee argued that five companies (Infosys BPO Limited, TCS e-serve Ltd., Universal Print Systems Ltd., BNR Udyog Ltd., and Excel Info ways Ltd.) should be excluded from the list of comparables for the ITES segment. The Tribunal found:- Infosys BPO Limited: Turnover of Rs.1,312 Crores, global brand value, functionally different, failed the RPT filter. Excluded based on the decision in Zyme Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT.- TCS e-serve Ltd.: Turnover of Rs.1578 Crores, engaged in BPO services, high brand value, functionally different. Excluded based on the decision in Zyme Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT.- Universal Print Systems Ltd.: Turnover of Rs.6.17 Crores, functionally different, engaged in printing services, failed the employee cost filter. Restored to the TPO for fresh adjudication.- BNR Udyog Ltd.: Turnover of Rs.1.47 Crores, failed the RPT filter, functionally different. Excluded based on the decision in Zyme Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT.- Excel Info ways Ltd.: Turnover of Rs.7.91 Crores, failed the employee cost filter, diminishing revenue, peculiar economic circumstances. Excluded based on the decision in Zyme Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT.4. Negative Working Capital Adjustment in the ITES Segment:The assessee argued against the negative working capital adjustment. The Tribunal found that the TPO computed the arithmetic mean margin on cost at 28.11% with a negative working capital adjustment of -8.70%, resulting in an adjusted margin of 36.81%. The Tribunal, relying on the decision in Tecnotree Convergence Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, dismissed this ground.5. Disallowance of Software Expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS:The assessee argued that software expenses of Rs.15,35,172/- were revenue in nature and there was no requirement for TDS. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for examination and verification of facts.6. Addition of Provision for Loyalty Bonus while Computing Book Profits under Section 115JB:The assessee argued that the provision for loyalty bonus should not be considered for computing book profits under Section 115JB. The Tribunal, considering the decision in the assessee's own case for the Asst. Year 2008-09, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for the exclusion of certain comparables, remittance of some issues to the DRP and TPO for fresh adjudication, and restoration of specific issues to the Assessing Officer for verification.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found