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

        <h1>Tribunal decision: Deduction, disallowance, transfer pricing adjustments clarified</h1> <h3>Oracle Finance Services Software Limited (formerly known as i-flex Solutions Limited) Versus Addl. CIT Range-8 (2) Mumbai And (Vice-Versa)</h3> Oracle Finance Services Software Limited (formerly known as i-flex Solutions Limited) Versus Addl. CIT Range-8 (2) Mumbai And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deduction under section 10A on interest income.2. Disallowance under section 14A in respect of exempt income.3. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of revenue received.4. Deduction under section 10A without adjusting loss of other eligible units.5. Computation of deduction under section 10A without deducting telecommunication expenses.6. Transfer pricing adjustment on delayed receivables.7. Transfer pricing adjustment on interest undercharged on loans to AEs.Summary:1. Deduction under section 10A on interest income:The assessee appealed against the denial of deduction under section 10A on interest income. The Tribunal referenced its own decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2003-04, where it was held that interest income from temporary parking of surplus funds is eligible for deduction under section 10A. Consistent with this view, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to allow the deduction.2. Disallowance under section 14A in respect of exempt income:The assessee contested the disallowance made under section 14A. The Tribunal noted that Rule 8D does not apply to A.Y. 2006-07 as per the Bombay High Court's decision in Godrej Boyce Mfg Co Ltd. However, since the assessee earned exempt income, a portion of expenditure needed to be disallowed. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in Godrej Agrovet Limited, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 2% of the exempt income.3. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of revenue received:The Tribunal found that the TPO's approach of selecting foreign AEs as tested parties and using undisclosed Indian comparables was against transfer pricing provisions and natural justice. The CIT(A) correctly rejected this approach and selected 11 comparable companies, whose average margin was 22.53%, within the tolerance limit of 5%. Thus, the Tribunal held that no transfer pricing adjustment was required and deleted the addition of Rs. 7.88 crores.4. Deduction under section 10A without adjusting loss of other eligible units:The Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd, which stated that deduction under section 10A should be computed undertaking-wise without adjusting losses from other units.5. Computation of deduction under section 10A without deducting telecommunication expenses:The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that telecommunication charges should be deducted from both 'Export turnover' and 'Total turnover' while computing deduction under section 10A, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd.6. Transfer pricing adjustment on delayed receivables:The Tribunal found that the TPO's method of computing interest on delayed receivables using average quarterly balances was incorrect. They noted that the AEs remitted money with significant delays after realization from their debtors. The issue was remanded to the AO/TPO for fresh examination, allowing computation of interest on individual bills after accepted credit periods.7. Transfer pricing adjustment on interest undercharged on loans to AEs:The Tribunal observed that neither the assessee nor the TPO substantiated their stand properly regarding the ALP of interest on loans to AEs. The issue was remanded to the AO/TPO for re-examination, considering the LIBOR rate plus appropriate points to determine the market rate.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was treated as partly allowed. The Tribunal directed proper opportunities for the assessee to be heard. The judgment was pronounced on 23.6.2023.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found