Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.52 seconds)Cit vs Agnity India Technologies Pvt Ltd on 10 July, 2013
In Agnity (supra),
the revenue had questioned, inter alia, the ITAT decision to exclude the data
relating to Infosys. One of the reasons was that the said company was a
"giant" corporation and was involved in multifarious activities. After
reproducing the comparative chart and noticing the facts, the Court reasoned
as follows:
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation & Ors. on 7 February, 2000
Sony India (P) Upheld the Exclusion may not be justified
Ltd. v. Deputy revenue's decision on the mere ground of loss and
CIT, [2008] 114 to exclude Godrej as competition. However, on the
ITD 448 (Delhi) a comparable. facts of the case, a number of
factors have the cumulative
effect of justifying Godrej's
Reversed the exclusion. These are: Godrej
Van Oord Acz India (P) Ltd. vs Acit on 30 November, 2007
Maersk Global Entities with The inclusion of entities with
Centres (India) abnormally high supernormal profits would
(P) Ltd. v. ACIT, profit margins depend upon the facts and
[2014] 43 cannot be rejected circumstances of each case. It
Taxmann 100 outright as should trigger further
(Mumbai Special comparables. In the investigation to establish
Bench). given facts of the whether it can be taken as a
case, two comparable or not - this would
comparables sought depend upon whether the high
to be included profits reflect a normal business
indicated unusual condition or whether they are a
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt.Ltd. on 4 April, 2013
28. Quite evidently, the Court accepted the assessee‟s contentions with
respect to dissimilarity of comparables; given the facts, equally, there was
ITA 417/2014 Page 35
sufficient material to favour that view, in the facts of the case. The Court,
unlike in Mentor Graphics (supra) did not undertake an analysis of the
provisions involved- it was not also necessary, given the admitted state of
facts.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Ntpc Ltd vs Dcit & Others on 10 January, 2013
Google India (P) Exclusion of two The Tribunal has consistently
Ltd. v. DCIT, companies making held that super profit making
[2013] 29 supernormal profits. companies have to excluded
Taxmann 412. from the list of comparables
before making transfer pricing
adjustment.
ITA 417/2014 Page 28
American Express Bank Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 July, 1997
In other words, as a general principle, both loss
making unit and high profit making unit cannot be eliminated
from the comparables unless there are specific reasons for
eliminating the same which is other than the general reason that
a comparable has incurred loss or has made abnormal profits.‖
ITA 417/2014 Page 30
This court notices that American Express Services India Ltd v Deputy
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 2013 (57) SOT 22 (ITAT-Del) said,
similarly, that:
Ipca Laboratory Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 March, 2004
26. The assessee‟s position is supported by reasoning in cases like the
ITAT‟s decision in Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2007]
109 ITD 161 where contentions such as these were accepted:
Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. vs Dit on 25 April, 2013
35. As regards the relevance of multiple year data for transfer pricing
determination, this Court is of the opinion that the general rule as prescribed
in Rule 10B(4) mandates the tax authorities to take into account only the
relevant assessment year‟s data. The proviso to Rule 10B(4) permits data
relating to two years prior to the relevant assessment year to be taken into
account in the event that they have an influence on the determination of
price. However, in such instances, the onus lies upon the assessee to
establish the relevance of such data. The language of Rule 10B(4) does not
leave any scope for ambiguity on this issue. This Court notices that this very
ground- i.e applicability of previous years‟ data for reaching out
comparables, was sought to be urged in Marubeni India (P) Ltd v DIT 354
ITR 638 but deliberately left moot, because the assessee had given it up
before the Tribunal. The TPO in his order dated 03.10.2011 has
comprehensively examined the authorities on this issue and rightly held that
ordinarily, the revenue has to consider only the relevant assessment year‟s
data under Rule 10B(4) and that data from earlier period may also be
considered if "it reveals certain facts which have an influence on the
determination of transfer prices in relation to the transaction being
considered". The assessee has placed significant reliance on the OECD
ITA 417/2014 Page 42
guidelines to contend the admissibility of previous year‟s data for transfer
pricing determination. However, for reasons given in the paragraphs below,
this Court is of the opinion that the OECD guidelines have no bearing on
this issue.