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>Tribunal decision: Inclusion of comparables, exclusion of Ladderup, reconsideration of CRISIL & ICRA</h1> <h3>Temasek Holdings Advisors India Private Limited Versus Income Tax Officer Circle- 14 (3) (1), Mumbai</h3> Temasek Holdings Advisors India Private Limited Versus Income Tax Officer Circle- 14 (3) (1), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Upward adjustment in determining the arm's length price (ALP) of international transactions.2. Rejection of comparables selected by the assessee.3. Selection of new comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).4. Use of contemporaneous data versus multiple-year data.5. Functional comparability of selected companies.6. Procedural fairness and opportunity of being heard.Detailed Analysis:1. Upward Adjustment in Determining the ALP:The primary issue was the upward adjustment of INR 62,254,019 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O) based on the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in determining the arm's length price (ALP) for the international transaction of non-binding investment advisory services provided by the appellant to its associated enterprise. The A.O., guided by the TPO's report, proposed an upward transfer pricing adjustment of INR 6,22,54,019/-.2. Rejection of Comparables Selected by the Assessee:The assessee had benchmarked its international transactions using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and selected comparables such as ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited and Informed Technologies Limited. However, the TPO rejected these comparables, which was upheld by the DRP. The Tribunal found that the exclusion of these comparables was not justified as they were accepted in previous years and directed their inclusion in the final list of comparables.3. Selection of New Comparables by the TPO:The TPO included new comparables like Ladderup Corporate Advisory Private Limited, CRISIL Limited, and ICRA Techno Analytics Limited. The Tribunal observed that Ladderup Corporate Advisory Private Limited was functionally incomparable as it was engaged in merchant banking activities. Thus, it directed the exclusion of this company from the final list of comparables. Regarding CRISIL Limited and ICRA Techno Analytics Limited, the Tribunal noted procedural lapses, such as the lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard and the significant related party transactions (RPT) in the case of CRISIL Limited, and restored these issues to the file of the AO/TPO for reconsideration.4. Use of Contemporaneous Data versus Multiple-Year Data:The TPO used single-year data for the financial year 2011-12, rejecting the multiple-year data approach adopted by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that this approach was consistent with Rule 10D, which requires contemporaneous data, and did not find fault with the TPO's methodology.5. Functional Comparability of Selected Companies:The Tribunal examined the functional comparability of the selected companies. It concluded that ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited and Informed Technologies Limited were functionally comparable to the assessee and should be included. Conversely, Ladderup Corporate Advisory Private Limited, being engaged in merchant banking, was not functionally comparable and was excluded. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to reassess the inclusion of CRISIL Limited and ICRA Techno Analytics Limited, considering functional comparability and procedural fairness.6. Procedural Fairness and Opportunity of Being Heard:The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, noting that the TPO had not afforded the assessee an opportunity to be heard regarding the inclusion of certain comparables. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its case on the inclusion of CRISIL Limited and ICRA Techno Analytics Limited.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the inclusion of ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited and Informed Technologies Limited in the final list of comparables and the exclusion of Ladderup Corporate Advisory Private Limited. It restored the issues regarding CRISIL Limited and ICRA Techno Analytics Limited to the AO/TPO for reconsideration, ensuring procedural fairness and an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found