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
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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>ITAT Delhi excludes four entities from comparable set for transfer pricing adjustment computation</h1> ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee regarding TP adjustment and comparable selection. The tribunal directed exclusion of four entities (Eclerx ... TP Adjustment - comparable selection - inclusion of the four entities herein i.e. Eclerx Services Ltd.; TCS E-serve Ltd.; Infosys BPO Ltd.; and Tech. Mahindra Ltd. - HELD THAT:- We see no reason to sustain the learned lower authorities action to this effect. We wish to make it clear that although the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention that each and every assessment year involves its own set of facts could not be simply brushed aside, the fact however remains that it is incumbent for the department only to pin point specific distinction in light of the corresponding change in the specified segment involved in such an instance. We further deem it appropriate to emphasize here that right from A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2013-14 before us, the assessee’s corresponding segment of IT-enabled services has not witnessed any change at all which could take us to a different conclusion as it is projected at the Revenue’s behest. Two of the four entities in question herein i.e. Infosys BPO Ltd.; and M/s Tech. Mahindra Ltd. had witnessed extraordinary event of acquisition in the relevant prescribed time period of two years prior to the relevant financial year as per Rule 10B(4) 1st proviso as well and, therefore, these two entities do not deserve to be included in the array of comparables. The Revenue could further not dispute that these latter two entities i.e. Infosys BPO Ltd.; and Tech. Mahindra Ltd. do not satisfy the corresponding relevant related party transaction filter of less than 25% adopted by the TPO himself as well. CIT(DR) at this stage sought to buttress the point that the assessee’s vehement contentions seeking to exclude the foregoing comparable entity by applying turnover filter do not deserve to be accepted. We find in this factual backdrop that in case of M/s Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (5) TMI 137 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has already rejected the Revenue’s very argument involving M/s Infosys BPO Ltd., thereby upholding the tribunal’s order directing exclusion thereof on turnover filter. The Revenue’s instant last argument fails in very terms therefore. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant third substantive ground to the limited extent seeking exclusion of these four entities namely Eclerx Services Ltd.; TCS E-serve Ltd.; Infosys BPO Ltd.; and Tech. Mahindra Ltd. and direct the learned TPO to finalize his afresh computation as per law in very terms. The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is valid.2. Whether the determination of arm's length adjustment to the appellant's alleged international transaction with Associated Enterprises was correct.3. Whether the assessment of the arm's length price of the appellant's international transactions was done in accordance with the law.4. Whether the risk adjustment contended by the appellant in its transfer pricing submissions was arbitrarily rejected.5. Whether the selection of current year data for comparability was appropriate.6. Whether charging interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act was justified.7. Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was valid.Detailed analysis of the issues presented in the judgment:The appellant raised various substantive grounds challenging the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal heard both parties and examined the case file. The appellant's representative submitted that certain grounds were general, not pressed, or consequential and were rejected accordingly.The Tribunal focused on the issue of inclusion and exclusion of comparable entities in determining the arm's length price of the appellant's international transactions. The appellant, M/s BT E Serv India Pvt. Ltd., provided IT-enabled services and back office support services to its group entities. The Assessing Officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm's length price of the international transactions.The TPO's inclusion of certain entities as comparables was challenged by the appellant. The Tribunal analyzed each of the entities, including Eclerx Services Ltd., TCS E-serve Ltd., Infosys BPO Ltd., Tech. Mahindra Ltd., and ACE BPO Services Pvt. Ltd., in detail. The appellant's representative argued that these entities did not meet the functional asset and risk test and should be excluded from the comparables.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the inclusion and exclusion of the comparable entities. It referred to previous decisions and case law to support its reasoning. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the inclusion of certain entities as comparables was not justified and directed the TPO to finalize the computation afresh in accordance with the law.Significant holdings from the judgment:The Tribunal accepted the appellant's challenge regarding the inclusion of certain entities as comparables and directed the TPO to exclude Eclerx Services Ltd., TCS E-serve Ltd., Infosys BPO Ltd., and Tech. Mahindra Ltd. from the array of comparables. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of conducting a thorough analysis of comparables in transfer pricing assessments and upheld the appellant's arguments in this regard.The judgment highlights the need for a detailed examination of comparable entities in transfer pricing assessments to ensure a fair and accurate determination of arm's length prices. The Tribunal's decision provides clarity on the application of transfer pricing rules and the importance of considering specific facts and circumstances in each assessment year.Overall, the judgment addresses key issues related to transfer pricing and provides important guidance on the proper evaluation of comparables in determining arm's length prices for international transactions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found