TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the comparables selected in the technical services and back office support segments were correctly accepted or rejected, including the claim for working capital and risk adjustment; (ii) Whether the ad hoc disallowance of entertainment expenditure was sustainable; (iii) Whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax on global support service fees paid to EMCAP was justified.
Issue (i): Whether the comparables selected in the technical services and back office support segments were correctly accepted or rejected, including the claim for working capital and risk adjustment.
Analysis: In the technical services segment, one comparable was restored on the basis of consistency because it had been accepted in earlier years and had a separate service segment, while another comparable was rejected because it was a consistent loss-maker and functionally dissimilar, and a third comparable was also rejected on the basis of persistent losses. In the back office support segment, companies with high related party transactions required factual verification, one company was directed to be excluded if it was a KPO service provider, and other companies were directed to be excluded or re-examined where they were functionally different, lacked reliable segmental data, or were engaged in software development rather than support services. The claim for working capital and risk adjustment required reconsideration on the basis of the assessee's transfer pricing study and proper computation of comparables' margins.
Conclusion: The transfer pricing exercise was partly disturbed in favour of the assessee, with several comparables excluded or sent back for fresh examination and the claim for working capital and risk adjustment restored for reconsideration.
Issue (ii): Whether the ad hoc disallowance of entertainment expenditure was sustainable.
Analysis: The disallowance was made only on a percentage basis without properly examining the documentary evidence produced by the assessee. The existence of similar disallowance in an earlier year could not by itself justify a fresh disallowance in the absence of a proper inquiry into the genuineness of the expenditure for the year under appeal.
Conclusion: The disallowance of entertainment expenditure was deleted.
Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax on global support service fees paid to EMCAP was justified.
Analysis: The payment was examined under the treaty definition of fees for technical services and the make available test. The services described in the agreement were administrative and support services, and there was no material to show that EMCAP had made available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes enabling the assessee to apply the technology independently. The earlier years' consistent treatment under the same arrangement also supported the assessee's position.
Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, with relief granted on the entertainment expenditure and the section 40(a)(i) disallowance, and the transfer pricing grounds partly allowed through exclusions and remand for fresh examination of selected comparables and adjustments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
