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
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 ITO vs. Sudarshan R. Kharbanda (ITAT Mumbai)
 Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Arun Arya Vs. ITO (J&K High Court)
 ITO Ward-27(1), Room No. 119, C.R.Building New Delhi vs. Uncle Nephew Impex Pvt. Ltd. A-1/69, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi
 ITO, Ward-12(3), Room No. 420-B, 4th Floor,C.R.Building, I.P.Estate New Delhi vs. INS Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., A-2/452, Sector-8, Rohini
 YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Signature Tower-A, 14th Floor, South City Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-18(4) New Delhi
 Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 State Bank Of India vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 The DCIT, Circle-25(2), C.R. Building, New Delhi. vs. M/s. Travel Security Services India Pvt. Ltd., Suite No.605, 606, 6th Floor, Copia Corporate Suites, Plot No.9, Jasola Distt. Centre, New Delhi – 110 025.
 The DCIT, Circle-25(2), C.R. Building, New Delhi. vs. M/s. Travel Security Services India Pvt. Ltd., Suite No.605, 606, 6th Floor, Copia Corporate Suites, Plot No.9, Jasola Distt. Centre, New Delhi – 110 025.
 Komal Singh, R/o. H. No. 36, Shiv Awasiya Colony, Bulandhar, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Bulandshar

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -9 Vs. Wsp Consultants India Pvt. Ltd.
November, 09th 2017
$~27

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 03.11.2017
+       ITA 935/2017
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -9 ..... Appellant
                             versus

WSP CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT. LTD.                                  ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant            :         Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv.

For the Respondent           :         Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Shikhar Garg and
                                       Mr. Prashant Maherchandani, Advs


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA


S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

CM No. 39550/2017 (condonation of delay)

        For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the
appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of.
ITA 935/2017
1.      The Revenue's appeal urges that the impugned order to the
extent it excluded three comparables in ALP determination, of the
assessee's income, is erroneous.








ITA 935/2017                                                               Page 1 of 4
2.        The assessee is subsidiary of Cyprus based company and is a
global business provider involved in design, engineering, management
consultancy services across the built and nature environment
worldwide. It provides the services to transform the built environment
and restore the natural environment and its expertise in the relative
fields.

3.        The brief facts of the case are that the assessee provides design
and engineering services to private environment transporter and
infrastructure sectors, its subsidiary Cyprus based entity which
engages itself in these and other related activities.

4.        The TPO, who had to consider the report filed by the assessee
for ALP determination, took into consideration 16 comparables and
derived the ALP bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 6,55,34,938/-. The DRP
to which the assessee appealed, deleted 7 comparables and at the same
time included 7 more. After giving effect to the DRP's direction, final
adjustments of RS. 3,87,54,545/- was made by the AO.

5.        Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal challenging
inclusion of 3 comparables i.e. Ashok Leyland Projects Services Ltd.,
Kitco Ltd. and Mitcon Consultancy & Engineering Services Ltd., the
ITAT upheld the assessee's contentions.

6.        As far as the first comparable - Ashok Leyland Projects
Services Ltd. is concerned, the ITAT was of the opinion that the major
part of the Revenue derived was from wind energy segment and

ITA 935/2017                                                       Page 2 of 4
secondly that during the relevant year there was an extraordinary
event being merger of ALPSL with Ashok Leyland Wind Project
Services Ltd. and another company which presented a clear possibility
of differential advantage.

7.      With respect to M/s Kitco Ltd. the Tribunal held that it was a
substantial government undertaking and prominent business was from
government entity. So far as Mitcon Consultancy & Engineering
Services Ltd. was concerned, the Tribunal noticed that less than 75%
of revenue derived by this entity was from consultancy services.
Besides it is also engaged in diversified activities such as training and
engaging in laboratories and research etc.






8.      We have heard the counsel for the Revenue who urges that the
rationale for exclusion of three comparables which were high income
entities is unpersuasive.

9.      This Court is of the opinion that the rationale that Ashok
Leyland was deriving major part of its revenue from wind energy
segment and that there was an extraordinary event of merger and
likewise M/s Kitco Ltd. deriving income from government entity and
Mitcon Consultancy & Engineering Services Ltd, is deriving less than
75% revenue from consultancy services, is a reasonable basis for their
exclusion.

10.     Any inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be
treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated to the Court that

ITA 935/2017                                                     Page 3 of 4
the Tribunal or any other lower authority took into account irrelevant
consideration or excluded relevant factors in the ALP determination
that impact significantly.

11.     In the present case, we find no such error. Consequently, the
appeal is without merits and is, therefore, dismissed.


                                                S. RAVINDRA BHAT
                                                     (JUDGE)


                                             SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                                                  (JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 03, 2017
`rs'




ITA 935/2017                                                  Page 4 of 4

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Customer relationship management software CRM software Operational CRM Collaborative CRM

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