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

        Assessee's Appeal Partly Allowed: Key Rulings on Comparables, Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and Working Capital Adjustments

        M/s. Radisys India Limited (formerly known as Radisys India Private Limited) Versus. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-3 (1) (1) Bangalore

        M/s. Radisys India Limited (formerly known as Radisys India Private Limited) Versus. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-3 (1) (1) Bangalore - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Validity of the final assessment order passed beyond the prescribed time.
        2. Errors in the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) search process and application of filters.
        3. Inclusion/exclusion of comparable companies in the software development (SWD) and marketing support services (MSS) segments.
        4. Treatment of Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) costs as operating costs.
        5. Granting of working capital and risk adjustments.
        6. Disallowance of employee provident fund contribution remitted before the due date.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Validity of the Final Assessment Order:
        The assessee challenged the validity of the final assessment order on the grounds that it was passed beyond the time prescribed under section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act. The order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) was dated 31.12.2021, and the final assessment order was passed on 28.2.2022. The assessee did not provide evidence to substantiate its claim of a belated order. The Tribunal dismissed this issue.

        2. Errors in TPO's Search Process and Filters:
        Grounds 2 to 5 raised by the assessee were general in nature and did not require separate adjudication.

        3. Inclusion/Exclusion of Comparable Companies:
        - SWD Segment:
        - The assessee sought the inclusion of five comparables: Akshay Software Technologies Ltd, Batchmaster Software Pvt Ltd, DCIS DOT COM Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Evoke Technologies Pvt Ltd, and Sagarsoft (India) Ltd. The Tribunal remitted these to the AO/TPO for verification of functional similarity.
        - The assessee sought the exclusion of thirteen comparables, including L&T Infotech Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, Tata Elxi Ltd, Nihilent Technologies Ltd, Cybage Software Pvt Ltd, and Infosys Ltd, due to high turnover. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of these comparables based on the turnover filter.
        - Infobeans Technologies Ltd and Cygnet Infotech Pvt Ltd were excluded due to functional dissimilarities.

        - MSS Segment:
        - The assessee sought the exclusion of Pressman Advertising Ltd and Majestic Research Services and Solutions Ltd due to functional dissimilarities. The Tribunal agreed and directed their exclusion.

        4. Treatment of ESPP Costs:
        The TPO treated ESPP costs as operating costs. The Tribunal found that the purchase cost of shares was charged directly from the employees, and the assessee merely facilitated the payment. The Tribunal held that the 15% discount received by employees could not be treated as operating costs in the hands of the assessee.

        5. Working Capital and Risk Adjustments:
        - Working Capital Adjustment:
        The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to grant working capital adjustment, following the consistent approach of the Tribunal in similar cases.

        - Risk Adjustment:
        The assessee did not press for this adjustment, and the Tribunal dismissed it as not pressed.

        6. Disallowance of Employee Provident Fund Contribution:
        The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee provident fund contributions remitted before the due date for filing the return, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT-1.

        Conclusion:
        The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, with specific directions for inclusion/exclusion of comparables, treatment of ESPP costs, and granting of working capital adjustment. The Tribunal dismissed the issues related to the validity of the final assessment order, risk adjustment, and disallowance of provident fund contributions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found