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

        Tribunal rulings on ALP adjustments, bad debts, working capital, and interest rates for Software & IT Services

        M/s. ADP Private Ltd Hyderabad Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1) Hyderabad

        M/s. ADP Private Ltd Hyderabad Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1) Hyderabad - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. ALP Adjustment for Software Development Services (SDS).
        2. ALP Adjustment for I.T. Enabled Services (ITeS).
        3. Correct computation of margins of comparable companies.
        4. Exclusion and inclusion of certain comparable companies.
        5. Provision for bad and doubtful debts as non-operating expenditure.
        6. Denial of Working Capital Adjustment.
        7. Adjustment towards interest on receivables.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. ALP Adjustment for Software Development Services (SDS):
        The assessee provided software development services to its group companies and selected 22 companies as comparables, reporting a margin of 18%. The TPO rejected most of these comparables and selected 13 companies with an average margin of 35.44%. The DRP directed the exclusion of certain companies and confirmed the denial of working capital and risk adjustments. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of companies such as E-Infochips Ltd and Thirdware Solutions Ltd due to functional dissimilarity, lack of segmental data, and other factors. The Tribunal also directed the inclusion of Evoke Technologies Ltd and Sagarsoft India Ltd after reconsideration.

        2. ALP Adjustment for I.T. Enabled Services (ITeS):
        The TPO selected 8 companies as comparables with an average margin of 35.46%, which was later reduced to 7 companies with an average margin of 33.13%. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd and E-Clerx Services Ltd due to functional dissimilarity and other factors. The Tribunal also directed reconsideration for the inclusion of Informed Technologies Ltd and Ace BPO Services (P) Ltd based on the assessee's contentions.

        3. Correct Computation of Margins of Comparable Companies:
        The assessee sought correct computation of margins for companies such as E-Infochips Ltd, Thirdware Solutions Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, Tata Elxsi Ltd, Infosys BPO Ltd, and Microland. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO/TPO for computation of the correct margins.

        4. Exclusion and Inclusion of Certain Comparable Companies:
        The Tribunal directed the exclusion of companies such as E-Infochips Ltd, Thirdware Solutions Ltd, Infobeans Technologies Ltd, Infosys Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, and Tata Elxsi Ltd due to functional dissimilarity, lack of segmental data, and other factors. The Tribunal also directed the inclusion of Evoke Technologies Ltd and Sagarsoft India Ltd after reconsideration.

        5. Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts as Non-Operating Expenditure:
        The assessee's ground regarding the provision for bad and doubtful debts as non-operating expenditure was not pressed and therefore rejected.

        6. Denial of Working Capital Adjustment:
        The TPO and DRP denied working capital adjustment, and the Tribunal upheld this decision as the assessee failed to substantiate the impact of working capital adjustment on its profit margins vis-à-vis comparable companies.

        7. Adjustment Towards Interest on Receivables:
        The TPO proposed an adjustment towards interest on receivables, which was confirmed by the DRP with a credit period of 30 days and a reasonable interest rate. The Tribunal directed that the interest rate be based on LIBOR + instead of SBIPLR rate, as the receivables were in foreign currency.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal provided detailed directions on the inclusion and exclusion of comparable companies, correct computation of margins, and adjustments towards interest on receivables. The Tribunal upheld the denial of working capital adjustment and rejected the ground regarding the provision for bad and doubtful debts as non-operating expenditure. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found