Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Comverse Network Systems India Pvt. ... vs Acit, Gurgaon on 20 January, 2017

Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 14 June, 2019

• Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) • CIT vs. Neo Polypack Private Limited (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del) • NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2011) 10 Taxman 140 (Mum.) The Ld. AR further submitted that it is well settled and consistently upheld by the Courts that the Department cannot sit in the armchair of the businessman 13 ITA No. 1736/Del/2015 and question the business rationale or commercial wisdom of the businessman. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee's risk/responsibility in respect of goods and parts procured from its AE is low because the AE bears the risk relating to products during the warranty period. However, once, the warranty period is over, the assessee itself is obligated to provide necessary support services to its customers for which it has entered into AMC contracts or for the equipment /parts which have been procured locally. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the DRP passed its directions for the subject assessment year on December 16, 2014 on which date the TPO's order October 26, 2016, passed pursuant to the decision of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2007-08, verifying the formula for computing the SLS charge and accepting it as reasonable/ appropriate was not available. In other words, there was no occasion before the DRP for analyzing the formula, which was the domain of TPO upon remand by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the TPO in A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10, consistently accepted the formula used by the assessee for computing SLS charge. Thus, there being no change in the facts or in the formula, alleging inappropriateness of the formula, once the Department has consistently approved the same is not warranted. In view of the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the international transaction of receipt of SLS services basis the accepted allocation formula deserves to be accepted and the adjustment be deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ceb India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs Acit, Gurgaon on 17 March, 2017

Thus, this company having huge intangibles assets cannot be compared with the assessee who has no significant intangibles. That apart, it has been pointed out by the Ld. Counsel that, this company has been emerged with TCS in the year 2009 which has led to shooting up of its profit margin to 13% to 68%-70%. This factor itself points out that its high profit margin were due to its huge brand value, which cannot be held to be comparable with captive service provider like Assessee Company. So far as the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of 'Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd' is concerned as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel, we find that this decision of the Tribunal has been distinguished and explained by the subsequent three decisions of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT, wherein, the Tribunal has categorically held that, in absence of any segmental details and segregation of the total revenue this comparable company cannot held to be comparable. The relevant observation of the Tribunal in the case of Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd (supra) reads as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

M/S D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services ... vs Jcit, New Delhi on 4 September, 2017

3.1 Ld. AR also submitted that if M/s Brescon Advisors and Holdings Limited, Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Private Limited and Keynote Corporate Services Limited were excluded from the final set of comparables, then the transaction undertaken by the assessee would become at arm's length and thereafter the other two comparables need not be considered. Ld. AR also submitted that these 3 comparables should not only be excluded on the ground of being functionally different but also on the ground of having earned supernormal profits. It was submitted that M/s Brescon Corporate Advisors Limited had earned profit of more than 80% and Motilal Oswal had earned profit of more than 90% which was abnormally high. Ld. AR submitted that it was a settled law that comparable companies earning extraordinary profits should not be taken as a comparable. For this proposition, the ld. AR relied on E-gain Communication Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO reported in 118 ITD (Pune) 243, Philips Software Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 119 TTJ (Bang) 721, Adobe 25 ITA No. 1681/Del/2015, 1018/D/2016, 75/D/2017 Assessment year: 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13 Systems India Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 138 TTJ (Del) 122 and DCIT vs Quark Systems (P) Ltd. 132 TTJ (Chandigarh) (SB-1). 3.2 On the second issue regarding adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables, the ld. AR submitted outstanding receivables was not a separate international transaction and the early or the late realisation of proceeds was only instrumental to the main international transaction i.e. provision of financial and investment advisory services. It was submitted that receivables was not a separate transaction in itself and once Arm's Length Price was determined in respect of service transaction, it should be deemed to cover all elements of such transaction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

14.1 In this connection, it is mentioned in the impugned order that the assessee tendered a fresh claim u/s 43B in respect of sales-tax of Rs. 15,51,403/-, deposited by it under protest. It was submitted that the demand had been raised by the sales-tax authorities but the amount 51 ITA Nos. 4008, 4114 & 4994(Del)/2010 was not debited to profit and loss account as the demand had been challenged. Due to inadvertence, the claim was also not made at the time of filing of the return of income. The amount is otherwise deductible in computing the total income under the provisions of section 43B. The ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the deduction by following the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Emerson Network Power (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 122 TTJ 67 and Chicago Neumatic (I) Ltd., 15 SOT 252, in which it has been held that the claim could not be rejected on technical grounds and the AO was obliged to give relief to the assessee as per law even though the assessee had not filed the revised return.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. ... vs Addl. Cit, Special Range- 3, New Delhi on 18 January, 2018

"11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On a consideration of the entire factual matrix where the issue of Amendment by Finance Act, 2012 in terms of insertion of Explanation to Section 92B with retrospective effect from 01.04.2003 as considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the decision of Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd. is relied upon by the Id. CIT DR and considering the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 11 ITA No. 6735/Del/2017 Vodafone Shell 268 ITR 1 and followed in Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. 369 ITR 516 (Bom.) which issue has not been argued by the Ld. AR and consequently not addressed by the Ld. DR accordingly in the facts of the present case, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the TPO allowing the alternate prayer of the assessee directing the TPO to restrict the addition if any to the net outstanding receivables and not gross outstanding receivables."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Messe Duesseldorf India Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 4 January, 2018

In so far as question of denying the benefit of +/- 5% by applying the TNMM under Second Proviso to section 92C (2) by ld. TPO/DRP is concerned, the ld. AR for the taxpayer relied upon the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case cited as (i) Sony India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT - 315 ITR (AT) 150; (ii) ACIT vs. MSS India (P) Ltd.- 123 TTJ 657, (iii) M/s. Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.5043/Del/2010 dated 21.01.2011 and M/s. Symantec Software Consultants vs. ACIT in ITA No.7894/2010 dated 31.05.2011.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1