Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate on 30 April, 1964
b) CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC)
The Ld. AR further submitted that in the transfer pricing documentation, the
assessee determined arm's length price of the international transaction of
rendering BPO services applying CUP method. Since the prices charged by the
assessee at USD 19.20 per hour from the AE exceed the prices charged from
the unrelated party, i.e., ALP @ USD 14.00 per hour, the 'international
transactions' of BPO services were considered being at arm's length, in the
Transfer Pricing Documentation. The Ld. AR further submitted that in the BPO
industry the prevalent rate for services was in the range of USD 8 to USD 15
6 ITA No. 2881/Del/2011
per hour and was comparable/lower to the rate of USD 19 charged by the
assessee from the AE and was at arm's length applying CUP method. The Ld.
AR further submitted that the assessee furnished the details with reference to
Article on MphasiS BPO, Article on VKALP BPO Services, Article on IT Trends
by Stephanie Moore and Dataquest's article on trends in BPO industry in India
to the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. But the same
was ignored by the Assessing Officer.
Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 15 March, 2019
Similarly, the Delhi Tribunal in
case of Noble Resources and Trading India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.
3132/Del/2013) upheld the use of quotations as a valid CUP. During the
relevant previous year the assessee had generated billed man-month of 208
while the idle time of the people was 223 man-month. Accordingly, out of total
billable 431 man months, only 208 man months were billed by the assessee.
Sanjay Sawhney vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 May, 2020
Therefore there was idle capacity to the extent of 51%. After making
adjustment on account of idle employee cost the adjusted operating margins of
the assessee is work out at 45.87% which is more than the arithmetic mean
margin of the comparables companies at 15.49% (corrected margin 9.66%).
Thus, this does not warrant any transfer pricing adjustment in respect of
international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The Ld. AR further
submitted that in terms of Rule 27, the assessee is entitled to defend the order
of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal on all grounds including the grounds which
have either not been decided by the CIT(A) or have been decided against the
assessee. For which, the Ld. AR relied upon the decisions of Sanjay Sawhney
vs. Pr. CIT 273 Taxmann 332 (Del.)
B.R. Bamasi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 16 February, 1970
and B. R. Bamasi vs. CIT 83 ITR 233
(Bom). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the adjustment made by the TPO is not
sustainable even applying the CUP method.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Rajshri Packages (Now Merged With ... on 4 May, 2018
The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble
Gujrat High Court in case of CIT vs. Adani Wilmar Ltd. (ITA No. 240/2014)
upheld the use of quotations as a valid CUP.
1