Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
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) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: list of goods taxed at 4%
From the Courts »
  Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xiii & Anr.
 Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xiii & Anr.
 Central Board Of Direct Taxes Vs. Satya Narain Shukla
 Meena Rastogi Vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, & Anr.
 Siddharth Rastogi Vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue & Anr.
 ITO vs. NVS Builders Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
 Approva Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)
 Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court)
 Virag Tiwari Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 & Others
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)

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 2018 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