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: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: empanelment :: due date for vat payment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS :: VAT RATES
« ITAT-Constitution of Benches »
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: Pune Benches : Pune Cause list for SA/MA Fixed for Hearing on 23/03/2018
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: Kolkata Benches : Kolkata Constitution of Kolkata Benches from 02/04/2018 To 05/04/2018(06/04/2018 - M.A.Day)
 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches ChennaiConstitutin for The week from 19/03/2018 To 23/03/2018
 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Benches Jaipur 19/03/2018
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal : Kolkata Benches : Kolkata Consolidated List Of Orders Ready For Pronouncement On 21/03/2018.
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Consolidated list of orders ready for Pronouncement on 21.03.2018
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Benches Jaipur Constitution of Benches for The Period from 19/03/2018 To 30/03/2018
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Benches For The Week Ending On 23/03/2018
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches Chennai Constitution for The from 19/03/2018 To 23/03/2018
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Benches Bangalore "A" Bench DB Cases Causelist for the week from 19/03/2018 To 22/03/2018
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal : Bangalore Benches : Bangalore Constitution for the week from 1/03/2018 To 23/03/2018

ACIT vs. Maersk Global Service Center (ITAT Mumbai)
December, 07th 2011

Transfer Pricing: If TPO does not give cogent reasons to reject a comparable, it must be presumed to be comparable & DR cannot argue to the contrary
The assessee, a captive service provider rendering back office support services to its AEs, earned an adjusted Net Cost plus Margin of 7.90%. The assessee adopted TNMM and computed the mean of margins earned by the comparables at 7.62%. The TPO held that No companies were identified as comparables by the assessee and after selecting 12 companies as comparables, determined an arithmetic mean of 27.80% and made an adjustment of Rs. 10.49 crores. The CIT(A) deleted the addition. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:
(i) The TPO was wrong in stating that the assessee has not provided any comparables. The initial prerogative of choosing comparable cases is always that of the assessee because it is the best judge to know the exact services rendered by it and finding the comparable cases from the data base. If the TPO wants to exclude any of such comparables, he has to justify the exclusion by adducing cogent reasons and cannot act on whims and fancies. If the TPO fails to show expressly as to how the cases are not comparable, a presumption has to be drawn that those cases are comparable;
(ii) The departments argument that even if the TPO had not given reasons to exclude the assessees comparables, the CIT(A) ought to have done so is not acceptable. Going by the presumption of acceptability of such cases, the appellate authority is under no duty to check whether the work was properly done by the AO/TPO to the prejudice of the assessee. The fact that the CIT (A) has the power to enhance does not mean that he has a duty to do so;
(iii) The Dept Representative, while arguing the appeal, cannot improve the order of the AO/TPO by contending that the TPO was wrong in accepting a particular claim of the assessee. While the DR has the duty to defend the order of the TPO, he cannot find flaws in the order of the TPO in an attempt to show that the TPO failed to do what was required to be done by him. If the DR is allowed to fill in the gaps left by the TPO it would amount to conferring the jurisdiction of the CIT u/s 263 to the DR. The DR cannot be allowed to take a stand contrary to the one taken by the TPO. Accordingly, the DR cannot be allowed to argue that certain cases included by the assessee in the list of comparables, were in fact not comparable, when the TPO failed to point out as to how such cases were distinguishable (Mahindra & Mahindra 122 TTJ (Mum) (SB) 577 followed, Quark Systems 38 SOT 307 (Chd) (SB) distinguished).

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Quality Assurance Services Testing and Re-testing

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