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: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES :: VAT Audit :: due date for vat payment
 
 
« ITAT-Constitution of Benches »
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Visakhapatnam Bench Consolidated list of orders ready for pronouncement on 06/04/2017
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Consolidated list of orders ready for pronouncement on 26/04/2017
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal : Kolkata Benches : Kolkata Constitution of Kolkata Benches for one week from 17.04.2017 To 20.04.2017(21st April 2017- M.A.Day)
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches, Hyderabad. Constitution For The Period From 17.04.2017 To 27.04.2017.
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune Benches Pune Causelist for Bench 'A' For The Week Ending 21/04/2017
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune Benches Pune Causelist for Bench 'A' For The Week Ending 21/04/2017
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench List Of Division Bench Cases Posted Before Shri V Durga Rao, Hon'ble Judicial Member & Shri G Manjunatha, Hon'ble Accountant Member During The Period From 17 April, 2017 To 5 May, 2017.
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi Constitution of Benches from 17/04/2017 To 20/04/2017
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal : Bangalore Benches : Bangalore 'A' Bench DB Cases Causelist for the Week from 17/04/2017 To 20/04/2017
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal : Pune Benches : Pune Constitution of Pune Benches Division Bench from : 17/03/2017 To 21/03/2017
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Constitution of Benches from 17/04/2017 To 20/04/2017

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 2017 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