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
  • 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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        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

        <h1>Tax Tribunal: Excludes Tata & Wipro, Retains Infosys as Comparable. Working Capital Adjustments.</h1> <h3>M/s. Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Versus JCIT, Range-1, Noida</h3> The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the AO/TPO to exclude Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. and Wipro Ltd. as comparables due to ... TPO - comparable selection - Held that:- Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee providing software development service need to be added to final list of comparable. Issues Involved:1. Rejection and inclusion of certain comparable companies.2. Suitable adjustments for differences in risk profile and working capital.Issue 1: Rejection and Inclusion of Certain Comparable CompaniesGround No. 6:The assessee challenged the rejection of certain comparable companies and the inclusion of functionally dissimilar companies in the final set of comparables under both software development services and marketing support services segments. The Tribunal had previously allowed the exclusion of two comparables under the marketing support services segment but did not provide findings on four comparables retained under the software development services segment.Comparables Under Software Development Services:* Bodhtree Consulting Ltd:- The assessee argued that Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. is functionally dissimilar and has shown abnormal growth. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that since this comparable was already excluded by the DRP, the assessee could not challenge its exclusion. The Tribunal refrained from giving any direction on this comparable.* Infosys Technologies Ltd:- The assessee argued for exclusion due to insufficient segmental information, high turnover, and significant intangible assets. The Tribunal found Infosys Technologies Ltd. to be functionally similar to the assessee, noting that the assessee also plays a dominant role in software development and has economic ownership of intangibles. The Tribunal directed the TPO to retain Infosys Technologies Ltd. as a comparable.* Tata Consultancy Services Ltd:- The assessee argued for exclusion due to revenue from diverse sources and an extraordinary event (acquisition of Citi Group Inc.). The Tribunal found that the acquisition affected the profit level indicator and directed the TPO/AO to exclude Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. from the comparables.* Wipro Ltd:- The assessee argued for exclusion due to diverse business operations, significant intangible assets, and an extraordinary event (acquisition and merger). The Tribunal found that the acquisition and mergers enhanced the company's capabilities, making it an extraordinary event. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to exclude Wipro Ltd. from the comparables.* Zenith Infotech Ltd:- The assessee argued for exclusion due to the company's engagement in various products and exceptional financial performance. The Tribunal found the company functionally similar to the assessee and directed the AO/TPO to retain Zenith Infotech Ltd. as a comparable.Issue 2: Suitable Adjustments for Differences in Risk Profile and Working CapitalGround No. 14:The assessee argued that differences in working capital employed by comparables should be factored into the comparability analysis. The Tribunal noted that the claim for working capital adjustment was not new and had been discussed by the TPO and DRP. The Tribunal found that working capital adjustment had been allowed in previous assessment years for the assessee and directed the AO/TPO to give effect to the working capital adjustment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific directions to the AO/TPO regarding the inclusion/exclusion of certain comparables and the working capital adjustment. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 30th November 2017.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found