Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

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 / RSS

2023 (11) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onation of delay of 79 days in filing the appeal] 2. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 79 days. 3. Ms Ananya Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she would have no objection if the prayer made in the application is allowed. 3.1 It is ordered accordingly. 4. Consequently, the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 586/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 6. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the Tribunal is that Infobeans also pays sales tax and MODVAT. 10.3. Thus, based on the functional dissimilarity between the assessee and Infobeans, the said comparable was rejected. 11. As regards Cybercom, the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are that it is into diversified activities which includes provision of software services. It is indicated that segmental details concerning various segments are not available in public domain. 11.1. Importantly, the Tribunal highlighted that, unlike the respondent/assessee, Cybercom is the business of providing technical services. Based on this finding, the Tribunal has excluded Cybercom as a comparable. 12. This brings us to the third comparable i.e., Infosys. The Tribunal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the DRP: "...2.5.1 The Panel has considered the taxpayer's contention with regard to the adjustments on account of working capital and also the arguments of the TPO. 2.5.2 Working capital adjustments is utilized when a tested party exhibits different working capital intensities relative lo a set of comparables. This is illustrated through two key areas of working capital adjustments: i. Inventory and accounts receivable adjustments; and ii. Accounts payable adjustments In brief, the profit of the comparable is to be adjusted as under depending on trade receivables/debtors, trade payables/creditors and inventories. Interest cost will be high if the trade receivables/debtors time cycle is la....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no adjustment on account of interest on receivables is required to be made. 17. We may note that, as far as the Tribunal is concerned, it has followed its decision for AY 2015-16. 18. The Tribunal has noted the assertions made on behalf of the respondent/assessee that it permitted a ninety (90) days credit period. On behalf of the appellant/assessee, it had been emphasized that once the credit period exceeded ninety (90) days, interest had to be charged. It is on this account that adjustment was ordered with regard to the receivables. 19. The Tribunal, as indicated above, has relied upon its decision dated 01.11.2021 for AY 2015-16 and concluded that the said issue needed to be restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verifying t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....further noted that "the differential impact of working capital of the Assessee vis-à-vis its comparables had already been factored in the pricing/profitability" which was more than the working capital adjusted margin of the comparables and, therefore, "any further adjustment to the margins of the Assessee on the pretext of outstanding receivables is unwarranted and wholly unjustified. xxx xxx xxx 10. The Court is unable to agree with the above submissions. The inclusion in the Explanation to Section 92B of the Act of the expression 'receivables' does not mean that de hors the context every item of 'receivables' appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign AEs would automatically be ch....