Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Visual Graphics Computing on 29 January, 2016

Isoft Health Management India Private ... vs Dcit, Chennai on 31 May, 2024

12. The financial data of Mindtree Ltd. (seg), Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. and Tata Elxsi (seg) are at page Nos. 23 & 24 of the paper book, which clearly shows huge turnover as rightly pointed out by the ld. AR. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Visual Graphics Computing Services India Private Limited (supra), we direct the TPO to exclude the said five companies from the final list of comparables in view of their huge turnover.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dsv Air & Sea Private Limited,Mumbai vs Acit, Cirle-3(1)(1), Mumbai on 21 November, 2025

14. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. We find that before TPO the assessee made specific submissions for working capital adjustment as recoded in para 5.4.4 of his order. The TPO disregarded such submissions by refereeing United Nations Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for developing Countries (UN TP Manual). The TPO has also given his other reason for not allowing such adjustment as mentioned in para 5.4.6 to 5.2.11. The ld DRP upheld the action of TPO by relying of OECD guideline. It was also held that the assessee the assessee has not been able to demonstrate that working capital adjustment exists between the comparable and the assessee and that the profit of the comparables has been affected due to working capital difference. Considering the mandate of Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) coupled with the decision of Madras High Court in CIT Vs Visual Graphics Computing Services (India) Pvt Ltd (supra) and coordinate of bench of tribunal as recorded above, we direct 24 ITA 3653/Mum/2024 DSV AIR & SEA PRIVATE LIMITED the AO /TPO to allow working capital adjustmentwhile computing fresh adjustment while giving effect of this order. The assessee is directed to provide requisite details for availing the benefit of such adjustment. In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kumaran Systems Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai on 9 August, 2021

8. We have heard both the sides, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. It is a well settled principle of law by various decisions of Courts and Tribunal that upper turnover filter of Rs.200 crores has to be adopted, while selecting the comparable set of companies, for the purpose of benchmarking under TNMM method. Further, Dun and Bradstreet's analysis has classified software companies into 3 categories based on their turnover, as per which, small size firms are classified on the basis of turnover of Rs.2,000 and upto Rs.200 crores, medium size firms has been classified between Rs.200 to Rs.2000 crores and large size firms has been classified based on turnover of above Rs.2000 crores. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Visual Graphics Computing Services India Pvt. Ltd., supra, held that the Appellate Tribunal has rightly rejected comparables based on turnover filter criteria. The Hon'ble High Court while dealing with the issue, has considered the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s.Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., [2016] 381 ITR 216, wherein it was stated that a giant company in the area of development of software cannot be compared with assessee, which is having a small turnover.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1