Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (4.47 seconds)
Documents citing Mercer India Ltd., Gurgaon vs Assessee on 15 February, 2016

J.P Morgan Advisors India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Rg 3(2), Mumbai on 19 June, 2019

62. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. From the annual report of the company placed in paper book, it is evident that it is observed that the service provided by the company is completely different from the assessee. As could be seen, Genesis is providing full range of Geospatial Services to its customers which includes 3D mapping, navigation map, image processing, cadastral mapping, etc. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the business model of the company is completely different from the assessee which provides routine back office support service to its A.Es. After analyzing the aforesaid aspect, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in Mercer Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT (supra), has held that the company cannot be comparable to a routine ITeS provider.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ibm Daksh Business Process Services ... vs Assessee on 5 July, 2016

(iii) Cosmic Global Ltd - The assessee has relied on the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in Mercer Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA 966/Del/2014 for the exclusion of this company whereas it is the department's plea that this company was originally included in the list of comparables by the assessee 31 ITA No. 2666/Del/2014 itself and hence the assessee is precluded from raising objection to the same. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that the law does permit either of the parties to raise a ground not taken earlier but first time before the Tribunal and its past conduct will not have any adverse bearing on its rights if the adjudication of that issue goes to the root of the entire matter. We therefore permit the assessee to raise objections against this comparable but in the interest of justice restore the adjudication on the inclusion/exclusion of this company from the final set of comparables to the file of the TPO. Needless to say, the TPO will afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard before such adjudication.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. American Express (India) Private ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 3 August, 2018

23. After considering the aforesaid submissions, we find that this comparable has not been rejected not on the ground of functionality, albeit on the ground that it is following different accounting period. If the quarterly results are available in the public domain wherein the figures between, 1st January, 2009 to 31st March, 2009 are available, then there cannot be any difficulty to work out the proportionate profit margin. This issue has been discussed in detail by this Tribunal in the case of Cadence Design Systems (India) Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been observed as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Atos India Private Limited, Mumbai vs Dcit, Rg. 14(1)(1), Mumbai on 6 May, 2021

8.2. We find that this issue has been aptly addressed by the Hon'ble Bench in the case of Mercer Consulting India Ltd. (supra). This issue could not have been brushed aside by the lower authorities in the manner as has been done in this case. We find that ample details have already been filed by the assessee before lower authorities, therefore, in all fairness and justice we send this issue to the file of the AO/TPO who shall consider this decision and shall give an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to file further details and evidences as may be required and considered appropriate by the assessee and shall decide this issue afresh on objective basis after considering the details and evidences as may be placed on record by the assessee."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 21 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd., Uk.,, ... vs Assessee on 30 March, 2016

23. Though the decision of Tribunal relates to assessment year 2008-09 but the ratio laid down by the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the present assessment year since for the year under consideration the assessee has shown high profit trend analysis. Accordingly, the said concern functionally is 20 ITA No.784/PN/2014 M/s. Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd., UK not comparable. In view thereof, we hold that following concerns are to be excluded from the final set of comparables while benchmarking international transactions of the assessee with its parent office:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/.S Maximize Learning Private Ltd.,, vs Department Of Income Tax on 31 May, 2016

"19. The main objection of assessee with reference to the inclusion of this company is with reference to outsourcing of its main activity. Even though this company is in assessee's TP study, it has raised objection before the TPO that this company's employee cost is less than 21.30% and most of the cost is with reference to the outsourcing charges or translation charges, and as such this is not a comparable company. The TPO, though considered these submissions, rejected the same, on the reason that this does not impact the profit margin of the company. Opposing the view taken by the TPO, it is submitted that this company cannot be selected as comparable, as similar issue was discussed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal(Delhi) in the case of Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd. (supra), vide paras 13.2 to 13.3 which read as under-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Dell International Services India ... vs Assessee on 20 July, 2016

30. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The TPO as well as DRP has denied the risk adjustment on the ground that the assessee has not furnished the relevant details to demonstrate that there is a difference in the level of working capital employed by it vis-à-vis the comparable. Since the assessee is a captive service provider therefore the level of inventory, trade receivable and trade payable is certainly be different from the comparable companies who are dealing with third parties. The co- ordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd. (supra) has considered an identical issue in paras 16.1 and 16.2 as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unitedhealth Group Information ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 9 February, 2018

42. The taxpayer sought exclusion of Cosmic on the grounds inter alia that it is functionally dis-similar; that under BPO segment, no segmental detail of operating cost is available; that Cosmic's outsourcing expenditure is 56% of the turnover and relied upon taxpayer's own case for AY 2008-09 and Mercer Consulting India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.966/Del/2014 for AY 2009-10, Capital IQ Information Systems vs. ACIT in ITA No.124/Hyd/2014 for AY 2009-10 and Macquarie Global Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.6803/Del/2013 for AY 2009-10.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 42 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next