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>Notional interest not an international transaction under Sec. 92B. Assessee's appeal allowed, Revenue's dismissed.</h1> <h3>M/s. Agilisys IT Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO-9 (2) (3), Mumbai and DCIT-9 (1), Mumbai Versus M/s. Agilisys IT Services India Pvt. Ltd.</h3> M/s. Agilisys IT Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO-9 (2) (3), Mumbai and DCIT-9 (1), Mumbai Versus M/s. Agilisys IT Services India Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:Dispute over addition of notional interest on outstanding debit balances with associated enterprises treated as international transaction under Sec. 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. The dispute in this case revolves around an addition of Rs. 15,82,891 made by the Assessing Officer concerning notional interest on outstanding debit balances with associated enterprises, treated as an international transaction under Sec. 92B of the Act. The assessee challenged this addition, arguing that the outstanding debtor balances should not be considered as an international transaction, and therefore, no adjustment for notional interest is warranted.2. The assessee, a software development services company, had a significant portion of its revenue coming from associated enterprises. The assessee benchmarked its transactions using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and claimed that the margins were favorable compared to comparable entities. However, the Assessing Officer proposed the addition of notional interest on continuing debit balances of associated enterprises, citing a lack of interest charged on these balances.3. The CIT(A) disagreed with the assessee's arguments but reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) directed the adjustment to be calculated using LIBOR + 200 basis points instead of the 7% rate used by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue challenged this decision, advocating for the 7% rate.4. The substantive issue in the assessee's appeal was whether the outstanding debit balances with associated enterprises constitute an international transaction under Sec. 92B. The assessee contended that since it did not charge interest on overdue payments from non-associated enterprises, no adjustment for notional interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises should be made.5. The assessee also argued that even if the outstanding receivables were considered an international transaction, after factoring in the notional interest from the margin, the resultant margin still compared favorably with the average margin of comparables, indicating that no further adjustment was necessary under Sec. 92C(3) of the Act.6. The Tribunal considered the alternate plea of the assessee and concluded that after adjusting the notional interest from the margin, the assessee's margin remained higher than that of comparable entities. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 15,82,891 on account of notional interest on outstanding debtors was deemed not tenable and was directed to be deleted. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, while the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.This detailed analysis outlines the key arguments, decisions, and reasoning presented in the judgment regarding the dispute over the addition of notional interest on outstanding debit balances with associated enterprises treated as an international transaction under the Income Tax Act.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found