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: ?
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

        -

        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>ITAT Upholds CIT(A)'s TNMM Decision for ALP, Emphasizes Internal Comparables</h1> <h3>The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7 (1) (1), Bangalore. Versus M/s. e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. And (Vice-Versa)</h3> The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7 (1) (1), Bangalore. Versus M/s. e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to apply the internal Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method (MAM) for benchmarking the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprise (AE).Detailed Analysis:1. Application of Internal TNMM:- Factual Background: The assessee rendered Information Technology enabled Services (ITeS) to its AEs, and the price received had to satisfy the arm's length price (ALP) test under section 92 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) selected external comparables to determine the ALP, resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 5,45,74,745 for AY 2004-05 and Rs. 2,98,36,737 for AY 2005-06.- CIT(A) Decision: The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention that the internal margin for transactions with non-AEs was 23% for AY 2004-05 and 12.98% for AY 2005-06. The CIT(A) directed the TPO/AO to compute the ALP using the internal TNMM, citing the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11, where internal comparables were preferred over external comparables.- Revenue's Grounds of Appeal: The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision on several grounds, including:- The revenue earned from AEs (international market) and non-AEs (domestic market) cannot be compared.- Differences in geography, functions, assets, risks, labor costs, and legal provisions affect profit margins.- The taxpayer did not report segmental break-up in audited financials, and the internal TNMM was not raised before the TPO during TP proceedings.2. ITAT's Observations:- The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to apply the internal TNMM, referencing its own decision in the assessee’s case for AY 2010-11 and the Third Member decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s. Technimont ICB Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT emphasized that internal comparables have a higher degree of comparability than external comparables due to consistent factors like quality of output, assets employed, and input costs.- Key Judgments Referenced:- Mylan Labs Ltd. Case: The ITAT noted that internal comparables should be preferred when available, as they provide a more accurate reflection of the profits that would have been earned in an uncontrolled transaction.- Technimont ICB Pvt. Ltd. Case: The decision highlighted that internal comparables neutralize the effect of differences due to inherent factors, making them more reliable for determining the ALP.3. Conclusion:- The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections, affirming the application of internal TNMM as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP. The ITAT noted that the manner of determining the internal margin under the internal TNMM was not questioned, rendering other grounds of appeal purely academic.Final Pronouncement:- The appeals by the revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed, with the judgment pronounced in the open court on November 29, 2021.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found