<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (3) TMI 1064 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451283</link>
    <description>For determining ALP in the contract software development segment, the Tribunal held that a company lacking segmental data and engaged in broader software engineering services was not functionally comparable and directed its exclusion; a full-risk entity with marketing spend and intangibles was also held incomparable to a low-risk captive coder/tester and was excluded. A company earlier rejected as a persistent loss-maker was directed to be included since it earned profit in the relevant year; another single-segment software development company was held functionally similar and treated as comparable; and a functionally similar company affected by amalgamation was remanded for examining its impact on profitability before inclusion/exclusion. Notional interest on AE receivables and mismatch with Form 26AS were remanded for de novo adjudication, while the TCS short-credit ground was dismissed as impermissible parallel remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 13:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=748011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1064 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451283</link>
      <description>For determining ALP in the contract software development segment, the Tribunal held that a company lacking segmental data and engaged in broader software engineering services was not functionally comparable and directed its exclusion; a full-risk entity with marketing spend and intangibles was also held incomparable to a low-risk captive coder/tester and was excluded. A company earlier rejected as a persistent loss-maker was directed to be included since it earned profit in the relevant year; another single-segment software development company was held functionally similar and treated as comparable; and a functionally similar company affected by amalgamation was remanded for examining its impact on profitability before inclusion/exclusion. Notional interest on AE receivables and mismatch with Form 26AS were remanded for de novo adjudication, while the TCS short-credit ground was dismissed as impermissible parallel remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451283</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>