Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: due date for vat payment :: cpt :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: empanelment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD
 
 
From the Courts »
 Delhi High Court interprets applicability of amendments to Arbitration Act
  M/s Skin Institute And Public Services Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)
 M/s Skin Institute And Public Services Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)
 ITO vs. Emami Paper Mills Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)
 Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
 CIT vs. Subhash Vinayak Supnekar (Bombay High Court)
 Apollo Tyres Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin)
 CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (Supreme Court)
 DCIT vs. M. K. Enterprise (ITAT Kolkata)
 Qad Europe B.V. vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari vs. ITO (ITAT Vizag)a

HSBC Electronic Data Processing India vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
October, 28th 2014

(i) The TPO conducted search in the data bases for finding additional comparable by applying 25% employee cost filter. After examining the information obtained from the company u/s 133(6) of the Act the TPO treated it as comparable by observing that the company is engaged in IT enabled services and qualifies all the filters adopted by the TPO. It is very much clear from the order of the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not given any opportunity/ information to examine the comparability of the aforesaid company. Though the TPO is empowered under the provisions of the Act to obtain information with regard to selection of comparables, however before utilising the information obtained, he has to give fair opportunity to the assessee to have its say in the matter. The DRP has also over-looked this aspect.

(ii) Company showing extraordinarily high profit cannot be treated as comparable and have to be excluded as held in Avineon India P. Ltd Zavata India P. M/s. Capital IQ, M/s. HSBC Electronic Data Processing India P. Ltd., Information Systems India Pvt. Ltd and also Special Bench decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Maersk Global Centres (India) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 6(3), Mumbai dated 07.03.2014.

(iii) The assessee is a captive provider functioning under a limited risk environment with most of the risks being assumed by its AEs and comparables selected for analysis include companies which have fairly diversified areas of specialisation, bearing risks akin to any third party independent service provider. Since assessee is operating in a risk mitigated environment vis-à-vis the comparable companies performing entrepreneurial risk taking functions, the assessee seeks adjustment for the risk being taken by the comparable, whose profit would be more dependent on the risk involved. Since the assessee does not bear any risk of incurring losses and since comparable companies work in the market environment, the margins earned by the comparable companies would be comparatively more to reflect the higher level of functions and risks.

(iv) Reimbursement transactions towards travel, air fare and site expenses relating to employees of AE travelling to India for business purposes. Even though these transactions are considered as international transactions for the purposes of TP, since there is no mark up on these reimbursements, these transactions are to be excluded for working out the operative costs/operative margins as held in DCIT V/s. Cheil Communications India P. Ltd. (2010 TII 60 ITAT DEL TP) and Four Soft Ltd. V/s. DCIT (ITA No.1495/Hyd/2010)(142 TTJ 358).

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Internet Marketing Website Marketing Internet Promotion Internet Marketing India Website Marketing India Internet Promotion India Internet Marketing Consultancy Website Marketing Consulta

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions