<?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>2019 (3) TMI 2108 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468945</link>
    <description>Transfer pricing comparability for an ITeS provider turned on functional similarity and the availability of reliable segmental data. Microland Ltd. and e4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd. were treated as comparable because their activities were aligned with ITeS functions. ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. was excluded because it carried on diversified software, consultancy, engineering, web development and BPO activities without dependable segmental results. Accentia Technologies Ltd. and Acropetal Technologies Ltd. were also excluded because they were functionally dissimilar, operating as a KPO or in multiple specialised streams with no usable segmental information. The note states the comparables set was modified accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 16:46:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 2108 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468945</link>
      <description>Transfer pricing comparability for an ITeS provider turned on functional similarity and the availability of reliable segmental data. Microland Ltd. and e4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd. were treated as comparable because their activities were aligned with ITeS functions. ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. was excluded because it carried on diversified software, consultancy, engineering, web development and BPO activities without dependable segmental results. Accentia Technologies Ltd. and Acropetal Technologies Ltd. were also excluded because they were functionally dissimilar, operating as a KPO or in multiple specialised streams with no usable segmental information. The note states the comparables set was modified accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468945</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>