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
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2015 (12) TMI 1781

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the course of hearing Ld. Counsel has submitted the additional ground as under: "Symantec Software Solutions Private Limited ('the Appellant') craves leave to prefer an appeal on the following additional ground against the final order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - 10(1), Mumbai under section 143(3) r.w.s144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/ DRP: 15. erred in considering Man Diesel India Limited as a comparable company to the Appellant even though Man Diesel India Limited has significant related party transactions during FY 2007-08." 3.1. It was submitted that the additional ground is purely l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 2% of net sales for the value of services provided of its AE. The methodology followed for benchmarking international transactions was TNMM method, as per its Transfer Pricing Study Report. The TPO accepted the methodology of TNMM, however certain comparables given by the assessee company were rejected and few others were added by him in the final Accept-Reject matrix. Only five comparables were left, out of which 'M/s Man Diesel India Ltd.' is one of the comparables. The said company was included in the list of comparables in the TP study report submitted by the assessee company. 4.2. However, now the assessee has submitted additional ground before the Tribunal, contending that as per law the said company could not have been included ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stems Pvt Ltd. 132 TTJ (Chd) (S B) 1 2. CIT Vs Quark Systems India (P) Ltd 62 DTR 182 (P&H) 3. Akzo Nobel Chemicals (India) Ltd., Vs ACIT ITA No.1169/PN/2011 4. CISCO Systems (India) Private Ltd. Vs DCIT IT(TP)A No271/Bang/2014 5. ACIT Vs Convergys India Service (P) Ltd., ITA No.4291/Del/2009 6. Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT 155 TTJ (Hyd) 367 7. Four Soft Pvt. Limited, Vs DCIT ITA No. 1903/Hyd/11 8. IVY Comptech Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT ITA No. 1 558/Hyd/2010 9. Parexel International (India) Private Limited vs ACIT (ITANo.144/Hyd/2014). 10. Q Logic (India) Private Limited Vs DClT ITA No.227/PN/2014. 11. Stream International Services Pvt. Ltd Vs ....