The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5288 (Bang-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 92C

Acropetal Technologies Ltd. was predominantly doing on-site development of software and, therefore, could not be compared with assessee which developed software off-shore. Also, it failed 25% employee cost filter, hence, there could be no comparabilty analysis.

Transfer pricing - Determination of ALP - Selection of comparables - Different business model

Assessee rendered software development services to its AE abroad. TPO considered Acropetal Technologies Ltd. as comparable to assessee's case. Held: Acropetal Technologies Ltd. was predominantly doing on-site development of software and, therefore, could not be compared with assessee which developed software off-shore. Also, it failed 25% employee cost filter, hence, there could be no comparabilty analysis.

Followed:Dy. CIT v. CGI Information Systems & Management Consultation (P) Ltd. (2018) 93 Taxmann.com 9 (Bang)(Mag) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2154 (Bang-Trib) and Dy. CIT v. Herbalife International India (P) Ltd. (2019) 111 Taxmann.com 244.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. :

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 92C

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT