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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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>High Court excludes Infosys BPO from comparables in transfer pricing dispute. Dissimilarities cited, Assessee's approach confirmed.</h1> <h3>SYMPHONY MARKETING SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, NEW DELHI</h3> The High Court upheld the exclusion of M/s Infosys BPO Ltd from comparables in a transfer pricing dispute. The court found significant dissimilarities ... TP Adjustment - excluding M/s Infosys BPO Ltd from the list of comparables - functional dissimilarity - HELD THAT:- Assessee has placed before the Court a detailed chart which shows dissimilarities between the Infosys BPO and the Assessee on several counts. Infosys provides business process management services to organisations over a wide range of industries whereas the Assessee is a routine captive service provider. The valuation of goodwill of Infosys BPO for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 was INR 19.03 crores with no comparable value for the Assessee. The brand promotion expense for Infosys BPO for AY 2009-10 was INR 70.26 lacs and for 2010-11 INR 69.16 lacs. The corresponding figures for the Assessee are Nil. BPO Infosys incurred significant selling and marketing expenses for the two AYs in question whereas there is no such expense for the Assessee. Mainly the Assessee provides IT services only to its US based AEs whereas Infosys is among top 10 third party BPO companies in India. Even the risk profile is different while Infosys BPO is a full-fledged risk taking enterprise, the Assessee undertakes minimal risks of 100% services provided to its AEs. This Court has in several decisions held in similar circumstances as the present one that Infosys BPO Ltd. cannot be a suitable comparable. - Decided in favour of the Assessee Issues:- Appeal against impugned orders by ITAT- Exclusion of M/s Infosys BPO Ltd from comparables- Transfer pricing study and profit margin analysis- Assessing Officer's draft order and objections by Assessee- DRP's confirmation and rejection of comparables- ITAT's decision to exclude comparables- Arguments by Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue- Detailed analysis of dissimilarities between Infosys BPO and Assessee- Comparison with previous court decisions- Conclusion on the question of law framedAnalysis:The High Court heard two appeals by the Revenue against orders by the ITAT, both raising the same issue of excluding M/s Infosys BPO Ltd from comparables. The Assessee, now merged with Genpact India, provided marketing data management services to Symphony Marketing Solutions, USA, as a wholly-owned subsidiary. The Assessee's transfer pricing study included comparables with a profit margin of 14.34%, justifying its 15.95% margin. The Assessing Officer's draft order proposed additions, leading to objections before the DRP, which confirmed new comparables. Specific to Infosys BPO, the DRP noted consistent margins despite increased turnover and rejected the Assessee's brand profit argument. The ITAT allowed the Assessee's appeal, excluding comparables deemed functionally dissimilar.Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue argued for Infosys BPO's inclusion based on turnover and profit margin stability. However, the Court disagreed, highlighting significant dissimilarities between Infosys BPO and the Assessee. Notably, Infosys offered diverse services across industries, in contrast to the Assessee's routine captive services. The Court referenced previous decisions where Infosys BPO was deemed unsuitable as a comparable due to its distinct operations and risk profile. Comparisons with other court rulings further supported the exclusion of Infosys BPO in the present case.Referring to additional court decisions, the High Court affirmed the exclusion of Infosys BPO as favorable to the Assessee and against the Revenue. Ultimately, the question of law framed was answered in favor of the Assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The detailed analysis of dissimilarities and consistent legal precedents supported the Court's decision to uphold the exclusion of Infosys BPO from the list of comparables.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found