AI Insights
The case involves Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was primarily concerned with the selection and rejection of comparables in the software development services and ITES segments for transfer pricing purposes. The Tribunal examined the functional and financial similarities of the comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and those proposed by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by previous cases and the specific activities and financial data of the comparables.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300748 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
18-01-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
PartlyAllowed
Bench Allotted
I
Next Hearing Date
20-10-2022
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
25-12-2018
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8177/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 201, 2 nd Floor, Tolstoy House, 15 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi PAN :AAACQ0231C (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment years 2014-15, in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, on instructions, did not press ground nos. 5, 13, 14, 15, Appellant by Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 21.10.2022 Date of pronouncement 19.01.2023 ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 2 | P a g e 16 and the additional grounds. Keeping in view such submission of learned counsel for the assessee, we dismiss these grounds as not pressed. Further, in course of hearing learned counsel limited her arguments to ground nos. 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10. 3. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged selection of certain comparables under the software development services segment. 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. Assessee carries on business in following four segments: (i) Software Development Services (ii) Information Technology Support Services (ITES) (iii) Business Support Services (iv) Technical Support Services. 5. However, in the present appeal, the dispute is confined to two segments, viz., Software Services Segment and ITES segment, that too, in respect of selection/rejection of certain comparables. 6. At the outset, we will deal with comparables objected in software services segment. As could be seen from the facts on record, in respect of international transactions relating to provision of software development services, assessee benchmarked the transaction applying Transactional Net Margin ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 3 | P a g e Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method. For comparative analysis, assessee selected 22 companies as functionally comparable. Since, the margin shown by the assessee at 15.01% was found to be within the arm’s length range of the average profit margin of the comparables, the transaction with the AE was claimed to be at arm’s length. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) did not accept the TP analysis of the assessee after pointing out various deficiencies with regard to selection of comparables. After carrying out Function, Asset and Risk (FAR) analysis the TPO rejected 14 comparables selected by the assessee while retaining 8. Additionally, he introduced 8 fresh comparables selected by him. The average margin of the comparables selected by the TPO worked out to 29.07% as against assessee’s profit margin of 15.00%. Accordingly, TPO suggested upward adjustment to the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transaction relating to provision of software development services. 7. Before us, the assessee has challenged selection of 3 comparables. Hereafter, we will deal with comparables specifically objected before us and record our finding on the issue. ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 4 | P a g e Infobeans Technologies Ltd. (Infobeans) 8. Objecting to selection of this comparable, learned counsel submitted that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of the parent company and is a captive service provider. She submitted that the assessee is remunerated at cost plus 15% and bears limited risk. She submitted, Infobeans is into development and sale of software products. Drawing our attention to the information available in the website of the company, she submitted, it develops business application for web and mobile, automation engineering, services Now implementation, big data analytics, UX and UI, Custom Application Development etc. Drawing our attention to the financial statement of the company, she submitted that it has shown revenue from sale of products in foreign exchange through export of goods calculated on F.O.B. basis. It has also paid MODVAT and sales tax. Thus, she submitted, since the assessee is purely in the business of software development service and not into sale of products, Infobeans cannot be a comparable to the assessee. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 5 | P a g e i. Avaya India Private Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No.7290/Del/2018] (Delhi ITAT) for AY: 2014-15. ii. Emerson Electric Company (India ) Private Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No.6098/Mum/2018] (Mumbai ITAT) iii. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No.4706/Del/2017] (Delhi ITAT) for AY 2014-15 8.1 Proceeding further she submitted, the information available in public domain in respect of this company does not provide the segmental details. She submitted, for this reason, different Benches of the Tribunal have excluded the company from being treated as comparable. In support, she relied upon the following decisions: i. SynerzipSofttech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA No.224/PUN/2017] (Pune ITAT) ii. FIS Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITAT No.456/PUN/2017](Pune ITAT) iii. Triple Point Technology (India ) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA No.581/PUN/2016] (Pune ITAT) 8.2 Thus, she submitted, the company should be excluded from the list of comparables. ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 6 | P a g e 8.3 In reply, learned Departmental Representative drew our attention to the TP study report of the assessee and submitted that the software development services as well as ITES segments of the assessee are similar in all respect. He submitted, the assessee is doing various activities, including manufacturing as it is engaged into chip production and products designing. Drawing our attention to the financial statements of Infobeans, learned Departmental Representative submitted that it does not reveal that the company is into sale of software products. Further, he submitted, the quantum of sales tax and VAT liability does not make out a case that this company is a product company. 8.4 We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The main plank of assessee’s contention for removal of this company is to the effect that it is engaged in diversified activities, including, sale of products. Whereas, segmental details relating to income and expenditure of various segments are not available. On perusal of materials on record, including financial statement of Infobeans, it is observed that in the statement of profit and loss account the company has shown revenue from operations at 32,96,59,883/-. A reference to Note - 20 forming part of the financial statement reveals that the ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 7 | P a g e revenue from operations is from sale of software, both export and domestic. Note-27 to the financial statement shows that assessee’s earnings in foreign exchange are from export of goods/services calculated on FOB basis. The financial statement also reveals that the company has paid sales tax, MODVAT etc. All these facts demonstrate that the company is into sales of software products. Though, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the functionality of Infobeans is similar to the assessee, however, in absence of segmental details in the financial statements, the contention of learned Departmental Representative could not be established. It is relevant to observe, in case of M/s. Avaya India Private Ltd. Vs. ACIT (surpa), which is for the same assessment year, the Coordinate Bench excluded Infobeans as a comparable observing as under: “7.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties. We find that the Note – 27 of the annual report has provided details of earning in foreign exchange, which mentioned that export of goods/services amounting to Rs.32,96,59,883/- have been calculated on FOB basis. The Note – 20 of the annual report mention revenue from operations earned on sale of software (export) amounting to Rs.32,96,59,883/-. Thus, in view of the Note 27, the quantum of export of the goods and export of the services cannot be ascertained and thus in view of no segmental data of export of the goods and export of the services available separately, we are of the opinion that the company cannot we selected as comparable at entity level. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. AO/TPO to exclude the company from the set of the comparables.” ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 8 | P a g e 8.5 In case of Skill Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, ITA No.6570/Mum/2017, while dealing with very same comparable, the Tribunal has held as under: “6. We have considered rival submissions in the light of the decisions relied upon and perused materials on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, the assessee operates in a single segment of providing routine software development services to its AE. Whereas, Infobeans Technologies Ltd. is providing a range of services, such as, automation engineering, service now, UX and UI, customized software, storage and virtualization, data mining, data modeling, statistical analysis, machine learning technique, etc. Considering the fact that Infobeans Technologies Ltd. is engaged in diversified activities and segmental details are not available, the Tribunal, Pune Bench, in Pubmatic India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that this company cannot be treated as comparable. In case of M/s. Emersion Electric Co. India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which is for the very same assessment year, the Coordinate Bench following the decision rendered in case of Pubmatic India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that Infobeans Technologies Ltd. cannot be considered as comparable to a routine software development service provider. The same view was again expressed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in M/s. Abhay India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Keeping in view the consistency in the decisions of the Tribunal with regard to the comparability of Infobeans Technologies Ltd. with a routine software development service provider, we hold that this company cannot be a comparable to the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to remove this company from the list of comparables and determined the arm’s length price.” 8.6 Similar view has been expressed in various other decisions cited before us by learned counsel for the assessee. Thus, keeping in view the factual and legal position as regards the comparability of Infobeans, we hold that it cannot be treated as comparable to the assessee as it is not functionally similar. Accordingly, we ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 9 | P a g e direct the Assessing Officer to exclude this company from the list of comparables. Cybercom Datamatics Information Solutions Ltd. (Cybercom) 9. Objecting to selection of this company as a comparable, learned counsel submitted, it is specialized in IT Solutions and provides end to end solutions to the Telecom Industries. Further, it provides IT consulting and BPO Services. She submitted, company is specialized in digitalization, IOT, secure connectivity and cloud services. Further, drawing our attention to the annual report of the company, learned counsel submitted, under the head ‘disclosure of general information about company, it has stated that principal object of the company is to act as consultants and advisors on information/internet system and surveyors of information services, and to carry on the business of development, testing, implementation, migration of home grown and other applications, marketing and manufacturing of information technology products and services, software and hardware systems to enterprise and embedded technologies in telecom and other industries. She submitted, the company is in the business of providing technical and software services and no break-up of transactions pertaining to IT and BPO is provided. ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 10 | P a g e Thus, she submitted, in absence of segmental details qua different segments the company cannot be compared to routine software service provider like the assessee. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: i. Global Logic India Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No.8726/Del/2019] (Delhi ITAT) for AY 2015-16 ii. Pubmatic India (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No.655/Pun/2017] (Pune ITAT) for AY 2012-13 iii. Emerson Electric Company (India) Private Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No.6098/Mum/2018] (Mumbai ITAT) for AY 2014-15 9.1 Learned Departmental Representative, strongly countering the submissions of the assessee, submitted that the company being functionally similar to the assessee cannot be rejected. 9.2 We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. On examining the annual report of the company placed in the paper-book, it is observed that the company is engaged into diversified activities, including provision of software services. However, the segmental details relating to various segments are not available in public domain. Further, unlike this company, the assessee is not providing technical services. While examining the comparability of this company to a ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 11 | P a g e routine software service provider, the Coordinate Bench in case of M/s. Emerson Electric Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) has held as under: “13.5. Exclusion of Cybercom Datamatics Information Solutions Ltd - Margin of 76.21% It was pleaded that this company is engaged in sale of software and hardware products, rendering of consultancy / advisory services on information / internet systems and surveyors of information services in the nature of strategic advice, security solutions which are in the nature of high end consultancy services. The assessee pleaded that the segmental data in respect of aforesaid diversified activities are not available and hence not comparable apart from functional dissimilarities, in view of the fact that assessee is engaged into routine software development services. The ld. DRP observed that the principal business of the said comparable is providing the technical and software services and the profit and loss account also mentions sales of services. Accordingly, the same is a good comparable. We find from the annual report of the said comparable for 31/03/2014 under the heading "disclosure of general information about the company" that the principal object of the company is to act as consultants and advisors on information /internet system and surveyors of information services and to carry on the business of ITA Nos.6098/Mum/2018 & 531/Mum/2018 M/s. Emerson Electric Company (India) Pvt. Ltd., development, testing, implementation, migration of home grown and other applications, marketing and manufacturing of non-technology products and services, software and hardware systems, enterprise and embedded technologies in the telecom and other industries. This goes to prove that the said comparable is into diversified activities, high end services provider in the information technology sector for which segmental data is admittedly not available. Even from the accounting policy on „revenue recognition‟ of the said comparable, we find that the company has mentioned that revenue from technical and software services is recognised on a time and material basis when services are rendered and related costs are incurred. However, there is no break-up of revenue derived from technical services and revenue derived from software services separately for the purpose of ensuring comparability with that of the assessee in IT segment. In this regard we find that the reliance placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Andhra Pradesh High Court by the ld. AR in the case of CIT ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 12 | P a g e vs. Intoto Software India Pvt. Ltd., in IT(TP)A No.233 of 2014 dated 24/03/2014 is well founded wherein it was held as under:- ―We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal on fact found in the manner as follows: " Having heard both the parties and having gone through the material on record, we find that the TPO at page 37 of his order has brought out the differences between a product company and a software development services provider. Thus, it is clear that he s aware of the functional dissimilarity between a product company and a software development service provider. Having taken note of the difference between the two functions, the Assessing Officer ought not to have taken the companies which are into both the product development as well as software development service provider as comparables unless the segmental details are available." In view of the aforesaid fact-finding of the learned "^burial, this Court cannot re-appreciate the same. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.” 13.5.1. We have already placed reliance on the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Pubmatic India Pvt. Ltd. supra which had also endorsed a similar proposition. Respectfully following the same, we direct the ld. TPO to exclude this company from the list of comparables. Accordingly, the ground No.4 raised by the assessee with regard to software development services stand disposed off in the aforesaid manner.” 9.3 In view of the discussion made above, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude this company as a comparable. Octaware Technologies Limited (Octaware) 10. Objecting to selection of this company as a comparable, learned counsel submitted, the company is into diversified activities and segmental deals are not available in public domain. ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 13 | P a g e She submitted, it provided services in many areas, such as, Enterprise Portal, ERP and CRM implementation, Software architecture, Software development services, Mobile solutions, RFID and beacon solutions, Cloud, Security & IT infrastructure services, Geospatial Services, Consulting services. She submitted, though, this company has earned revenue from both software services segment and software products, however, segmental details are not available in public domain. Without prejudice, she submitted, the assessee and the comparable company are surviving in totally different sectors, hence, the company is not functionally similar to the assessee. In this context, she drew our attention to the financial statements of the company. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, simply going by information contained in the website of the company, it cannot be said that the company is having various segments, including software products. Thus, he submitted, there is no reason to exclude company. 10.1 We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. On a perusal of the financial statements of this comparable, particularly, statement of profit and loss account kept in the paper-book, it is observed that as per Note 14 to the ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 14 | P a g e statement of profit and loss account, the Revenue earned during the years is from software development services. There is no other stream of revenue reported by the company. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that the company is having more than one segment and is into development of products is not borne out from record. Further, it is relevant to observe, TNMM makes room for broad comparability. Considering the fact that this company is earning revenue from only one segment, viz., software services, we hold that it can be treated as a comparable to the assessee. Therefore, we do not find merit in the submissions of the assessee. 10.2 In ground no. 6, the assessee has challenged selection of two comparables in ITES segments. Hereafter, we will deal with them. Infosys BPO Ltd. (Infosys BPO) 11. Objecting to selection of this company as a comparable, learned counsel submitted that the company is functionally different as it is engaged in a wide array of services spanning from customer service outsourcing, legal process outsourcing to digital business services business, travelling services and robotic process automation. She submitted, the company renders legal process outsourcing services using its own technology tools and is also ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 15 | P a g e involved in digital content creating and designing. She submitted, the company is an established player in BPO industry and has positioned itself amongst the top 10 BPO companies in India and is an industries giant in BPO sector. She submitted, the company operates as full-fledged risk bearing entity and owns substantial intangibles. She submitted that the company has incurred sales and marketing expenditure of more than 100 crores which demonstrate that it has brand value. Proceeding further, she submitted, the company has a huge turnover of Rs.2323 crores as compared to meager turnover of Rs.90 crores of assessee. Thus, she submitted, under no circumstances the company can be regarded as a comparable to the assessee. In support, she relied upon the following decisions: i. Avaya India Private Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No.532/2019] (Delhi HC) ii. Agilent Technologies (International) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No.4191/Del/2018] (Delhi ITAT) iii. Steria (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No.6687/Del/2019] (Delhi ITAT) for AY 2015-16 iv. Avaya India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No.1958/Del/2017] (Delhi ITAT) for AY 2012-13 ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 16 | P a g e v. Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA No.1934/Del/2018] (Delhi ITAT) 11.1 Learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee is undertaking more or less identical functions as Infosys BPO. He submitted, ITES is a sub-segment of software services. He submitted, once filters are accepted, the assessee cannot seek exclusion of a company merely on the basis of turnover. Thus, he submitted, this company should not be excluded from the list of comparables. 11.2 We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee is a purely captive service provider and minimal risk bearing entity. Whereas, Infosys BPO is a risk bearing entity having diversified activities. It has the advantage of Infosys brand name and has established itself as a front runner in the BPO sector. It is also a fact that Infosys BPO owns substantial intangibles and has incurred significant selling and marketing expenses to improve its brand value. Further, the turnover of Rs.2323 crores reported by Infosys BPO compared to turnover of Rs.96 crores reported by the assessee makes the assessee a pigmy qua Infosys BPO. In case of Avaya India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 17 | P a g e Court has upheld the exclusion of Infosys BPO as comparable for the aforestated reasons. The other decisions cited before us by learned counsel for the assessee express similar view. 11.3 In view of the aforesaid, we hold that Infosys BPO cannot be treated as comparable to the assessee. MPS Limited (MPS) 12. Objecting to selection of this company, learned counsel submitted that the company is engaged in the business of providing publishing solutions, viz., typesetting and data digitization services. She submitted, the company has developed an end-to-end cloud-based publishing platform, MPS DigiCore. It has also developed automated solutions such as DigiTrak, MPS Digicomp, Automated composition. Thus, the company is a full- fledged entrepreneur, bearing substantial risks and concerns. She submitted, the company is also into software products as it has shown inventory of Rs.782.79 lakhs in its balance-sheet. Thus, she submitted, the company has more than one segment, whereas, segmental information is not available. She submitted, the financial statements also reveal that this company has a different business model as it has outsourced its activities. Further, she submitted, the company has reported abnormal ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 18 | P a g e increase in profit rate. Finally, she submitted, since, the DRP has not made any discussion on the comparability of this company, the issue can be restored back to the Assessing Officer. 12.1 Learned Departmental Representative submitted, it is a company selected by the assessee itself. He submitted, before DRP, the assessee had not raised any ground against selection of this company as a comparable. Thus, he submitted, the plea of the assessee in exclusion of the comparable should not be entertained. 12.2 In rejoinder, learned counsel submitted, the assessee did object to selection of this company as comparable in submissions made before learned DRP. 12.3 We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. No doubt, this company forms part of the list of comparables selected by the assessee in its TP study report. However, in course of the proceedings before learned DRP, the assessee in its submissions has sought exclusion of this company citing various reasons. As could be seen from the directions of learned DRP, no discussion has been made on acceptability or otherwise of this company as comparable. ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 19 | P a g e 12.4 In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to restore this issue to the Assessing Officer to examine assessee’s claim that the company cannot be treated as comparable. The assessee must be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard on the issue. 13. In ground nos. 8 and 9, the assessee has raised the issue of transfer pricing adjustment and imputing interest on outstanding receivables. 14. Before us, it is the submission of learned counsel for the assessee that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2015-16. 15. Though, learned Departmental Representative agreed that identical issue was decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, however, he submitted, there are factual differences in the impugned assessment year as the assessee has paid interest in the year under consideration. He submitted, as per the inter- company agreement, a credit period of 90 days is provided. He submitted, in case the credit period exceeds 90 days, interest has to be charged. 16. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Notably, while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2015-16, the Tribunal in ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 20 | P a g e order dated 01.11.2021 passed in ITA No.6421/Del/2021 has held as under: “18. The ld. AR argued extensively as to how adjustment with regard to interest on receivables cannot be resorted to. Primarily, we find that the assessee is a debt free company and has no claim of interest payable. Hence, in the specific financial conditions of the assessee, we hold that no adjustment is required on this ground.” 17. Having considered rival submissions, we restore this issue to the Assessing Officer for verifying assessee’s claim, keeping in view the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 2015-16 (supra) after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In ground no. 10, the assessee has raised the issue of incorrect computation of margins. 19. Before us, it is a common point between the parties that the consistent with view expressed by the Tribunal in assessment year 2015-16, the issue has to be restored back to the Assessing Officer. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we find, while dealing with identical issue in assessment year 2015-16, the Tribunal has restored the matter to the Assessing Officer with following directions: “9. The TPO erred in not giving effect to the directions of Id. DRP who directed to verify and take correct margins of the comparables and adopte d an inconsistent approach while computing operating ITA No.8177/Del/2018 AY: 2014-15 21 | P a g e margin of the comparable companies used in the determination of the ALP resulting in incorrect margins of the comparable companies. Detailed computation of margins of comparables provided to TPO pursuant to Id. DRP directions. We have perused the same in the paper book at page nos. 1709 to 1747. The AO is directed to re-compute the margins. The assessee would furnish the clarif ications promptly, if any, required by the Assessing Officer.” 20. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh following the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 21. No specific argument having been advanced in respect of rest of the grounds raised in this appeal. Therefore, they are deemed to have not been pressed, hence, dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19 th January, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 19 th January, 2023. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Other Referred Cases
Avaya India Private Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Emerson Electric Company (India) Private Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, SynerzipSofttech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, FIS Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Triple Point Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Skill Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Global Logic India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Pubmatic India (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, M/s. Avaya India Private Ltd. Vs. ACIT, M/s. Emerson Electric Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, M/s. Abhay India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, M/s. Cybercom Datamatics Information Solutions Ltd. Vs. ACIT, M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd. Vs. ACIT, M/s. MPS Limited Vs. ACIT
Laws Referred To
Income-tax Act, 1961
1:1 Consultation on Legal Requirements
₹1
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
Startup Valuation Certificate
₹0
Affidavit - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ITAT - Type 2
Mehul₹0
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026