|Published (Last):||21 May 2005|
|PDF File Size:||12.55 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.30 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in software development services could not be compared to: The Tribunal held that the assessee, managemetn in the business of providing software development, lrasanna assurance and support services to its AEs could not be compared with: The Pdd held that the assessee, engaged in rendering investment advisory services to its AE could not be compared with: Accordingly, it held that such classification of comparables on the basis of companies selected on turnover basis is not appropriate and acceptable and adopted the multiple of 10 times of turnover.
The Tribunal relying on its decision for the prior year held that for the purpose of benchmarking, the TPO was correct in adopting the single year data as the assessee investment analysis and portfolio management by prasanna chandra pdf download downloa to demonstrate any peculiarities in the data that would justify invoking proviso to Rule 10B 4 permitting use of multiple year data. The Tribunal held that the sales and support services segment of the assessee was not comparable to the following companies viz.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of benchmarking the call centre services provided by the assessee to its AEs, the following companies could not be considered as comparable:.
It inveestment that a company is considered to be a loss-making company if it has incurred losses in three consecutive financial years including relevant financial year.
Accordingly, it directed the application of 15 percent RPT filter, which led to the exclusion of 3 comparables viz. Gujarat Poly Avx Electronics and Keltron Group companies were not simply loss making concerns but persistently loss making concerns, their margins could not be adopted in order to benchmark the international transactions of assessee which was making supplies to AEs and was a market dominant concern.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in providing software development services to its US based AE could not be compared to Kals Information Systems Ltd as the said company was engaged in development of software development products. Xilinx India Technology Services Pvt. The Tribunal held that the assessee engaged in providing cargo handling and freight forwarding services could not be compared to Gordon Woodfree Logistics Ltd and that the said company was rightly rejected by the TPO as it was a persistent loss making company.
The Tribunal held that in case of assessee-company rendering software development services to investment analysis and portfolio management by prasanna chandra pdf download AE, a.
Notify me of follow-up comments by email. The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in providing IT enabled services could not be compared to:.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in the business of providing ITES, including data processing and call centre services in the insurance and financial sectors to its AEs could not be compared to: Kirloskar Consultants Ltd investment analysis and portfolio management by prasanna chandra pdf download it pxf providing engineering consultancy, project management services and architectural consultancy, d.
Further, it remitted the comparability of the following companies to the file of the TPO: The Tribunal held that the assessee, providing IT enabled Services to its AEs could not be compared to the following companies: The Tribunal rejected the application of the CUP method as the MAM adopted by the assessee in relation to its international transaction viz.
As regards, the application of TNMM, as adopted by the Analysie, it held that the same was incorrect noting that the TPO had taken Swarovski Korea and Swarovski Singapore as comparable when these parties were AEs of the assessee itself and could not be considered as prasnna uncontrolled transactions.
It observed that the concept of a forward contract was to hedge the future price fluctuations on the basis of a pre-agreed price when parties were dealing independently without any mutual interest and since the assessee had entered into forward contract with its AE, it held that the such agreement did not serve the very purpose of entering into a forward contract because a loss to either of the party would not be a gain to the other party.
No part of this document should be distributed or investment analysis and portfolio management by prasanna chandra pdf download except for personal, non-commercial use without express written permission of itatonline.
Therefore, it held that CUP was to be adopted for analyzing the ALP of medical transcription transactions and TNMM for the software development services, for which no objection was raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in providing software services could not be compared to: Infosys Ltd as it was investment analysis and portfolio management by prasanna chandra pdf download market leader, engaged in diverse activities including software products and also it owned intangibles and had high brand value d.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the TPO and held that the chsndra, engaged in manufacture and selling of generic injectable drugs had an AE relationship with 2 entities viz. The Tribunal directed exclusion of 9 companies viz. The Tribunla held that the assessee, engaged in the business of providing ITES services relating to back office operation to its AEs was not comparable to:.
Persistent Systems though excluded on other reasons based on the turnover filter.
Le Live Marseille : aller dans les plus grandes soirées discothèque et karaoké à Marseille
The Tribunal following precedent excluded 5 comparables on grounds of functional dissimilarity, ownership of intangibles, extraordinary event during the year affecting profitability and non-availability of segmental data. Noting similar treatment in APA in earlier year, it directed the AO to consider foreign exchange gains as part of operating profits.
In respect of other local AMP expenses the tribunal held that such expenditure cannot downloae regarded as an independent international transaction as there was no agreement or arrangement in writing or otherwise with the AE.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set chnadra the issue to TPO and added that assessee was at liberty to raise the objections of functional comparability if the need arose. Further it held that the assessee, providing software development services and global call centre services to its AE could not be compared to: Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter: Managemenf, it upheld TP Adjustment of commission income since the assessee was unable to dispute that the German unrelated party was a valid comparable under CUP method.
It dismissed the contention of the assessee for the exclusion of Vardan Projects Ltd on ground of higher margins of It also included the following companies that were excluded by the TPO: