TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Excludes Comparables in ALP Determination, Revenue Appeal Dismissed</h1> <h3>The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -9 Versus WSP Consultants India Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -9 Versus WSP Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:ALP determination excluding three comparables in the assessee's income.Analysis:The Revenue's appeal contested the exclusion of three comparables in the ALP determination of the assessee's income. The assessee, a subsidiary of a Cyprus-based company, provides design, engineering, and management consultancy services globally. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) considered 16 comparables and adjusted the ALP, resulting in a tax liability of Rs. 6,55,34,938. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) modified the comparables, leading to a final adjustment of Rs. 3,87,54,545. The assessee challenged the inclusion of three comparables - Ashok Leyland Projects Services Ltd., Kitco Ltd., and Mitcon Consultancy & Engineering Services Ltd. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the assessee's contentions.Regarding Ashok Leyland Projects Services Ltd., the ITAT noted that a significant portion of its revenue came from the wind energy segment, and a merger with another company created a potential differential advantage. For Kitco Ltd., the Tribunal highlighted its substantial government involvement. Mitcon Consultancy & Engineering Services Ltd. was found to derive less than 75% of its revenue from consultancy services, engaging in various other activities. The Court agreed that these reasons justified the exclusion of the comparables.The Court emphasized that the inclusion or exclusion of comparables is not a legal issue unless it involves irrelevant considerations or excludes crucial factors impacting the ALP determination significantly. In this case, no such errors were found. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
TaxTMI 