LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD VS ITO [2014] 48 TAXMANN.COM 46 (MUMBAI – TRIB.) – The Tribunal held that comparables providing KPO services like engineering or data analysis/processing etc cannot be comparable with the assessee engaged in providing low end back-office operations. The assessee was engaged in providing low end back-office support services. During AY 2007-08, […]
BRIGAE CORPORATION INDIA (P.) LTD vs ACIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 176 (Chennai- Trib.)
Facts: For AY 2007-08, the Assessee was engaged in the business of providing customer supporting services in the form of email support, voice support & chatting and financial information support for customers identified by the AEs. The TPO selected M/s.Eclerx Services Ltd as a comparable. The CIT(A) observed that Eclerx has an operating profit of […]
PIAGIO VEHICLE P. LTD v DCIT TS-534-ITAT-2012-TP
The ITAT held that the margin earned from sale of spare parts for after sale service cannot be compared with margin earned from sale of components sourced from India and sold to AEs. The taxpayer had exported parts and components to AE as well as non-AE. The TPO adopted internal TNMM as against external TNMM […]
ACUMEN FUND ADVISORY SERVICES INDIA (P.) LTD VS DCIT [2014] 50 TAXMANN.COM 317 (MUMBAI- TRIB.)
The issue for consideration was whether Motilal Oswal Investment Advisor, engaged in merchant banking activity can be compared with Assessee engaged in investment advisory services. Facts: For AY 2009-10, the assessee rendered investment advisory services to its AE. The assessee applied TNMM as the MAM and arrived at mean margin of 18.60% (PLI=OP/OR) by selecting […]
CIT V. MIRZA INTERNATIONAL LTD [2014] 51 TAXMANN.COM 21 (ALLAHABAD HC)
The Issue for consideration was whether there can be difference in treatment of export incentives while computing margins of comparables and Assessee The assessee made export sales to its AE in UK for AY 2008-2009. The TPO passed an order making TP adjustments. The CIT(A) observed that the TPO has computed the operating margin of […]
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL (P.) LTD. V. DCIT [2014] 52 TAXMANN.COM 85 (DELHI – TRIB.)
The issue before the ITAT was whether claim of working capital adjustment can be rejected on the ground that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturers/traders. Facts For AY 2006-2007, a TP adjustment was proposed by the TPO in respect of Software development segment and IT enabled services (ITES) segment. The Assessee had claimed that […]
PCIT VS. LUWA INDIA PVT. LTD. [TS-281-HC-2021 (KAR HC)-TP]
While exercising jurisdiction u/s 92CA(3), the TPO can only determine the ALP of an international transaction and cannot examine the allowability of the claim by applying the benefit test or the conditions as provided under Section 37(1) of the Act Facts The assessee, was engaged in the business of manufacturing textiles machines for textile manufacturers […]
COMPARABLES FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR AY 2016-17
OLF (India) Software Pvt Ltd v ACIT [TS-456-ITAT-2021(Bang)-TP] [Judges: Shri Baskaran and Smt Beena Pillai] – The assessee is engaged in rendering software development services to AE. The assessee sought exclusion of Persistent Systems, Aspire Systems, Larsen and Toubro Infotech, Nihilent Technologies, Infosys Ltd, Thirdware Solution & Cybage Software on the ground that these companies […]
FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED SANS DRP DIRECTION INVALID
Section 144C was inserted by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. from 01 April 2009. Section 144C(1) provides that on or after 01 October 2009 the AO shall issue draft assessment order in case of eligible assessee. The taxpayer can file objections before the DRP against the proposed draft order within 30 days from receipt of […]
WHETHER DRP CAN CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE
Section 144C was inserted by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. from 01 April 2009. Section 144C(1) provides that on or after 01 October 2009 the AO shall issue draft assessment order in case of eligible assessee. The taxpayer can file objections before the DRP against the proposed draft order within 30 days from receipt of […]