ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1423/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 November 2023AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that I-Gate Global Solutions Limited cannot be accepted as a comparable for benchmarking the ITeS segment due to the non-availability of segmental data. The Assessing Officer/TPO is directed to exclude it and re-compute the ALP.

What were the facts?

This is a corrigendum to a previous ITAT order. It corrects the name of the appellant and a comparable company mentioned in the original judgment. The core issue relates to the exclusion of a comparable company for transfer pricing benchmarking.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is the appropriateness of using I-Gate Global Solutions Limited as a comparable for transfer pricing purposes due to data limitations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the corrigendum, but the context implies transfer pricing provisions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No.1423/Mum/2016
ITA No. 581/Bang/2016
C.O. 21/Bang/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

CORRIGENDUM In the order, dated 11/07/2023, passed by “K” Bench of the Tribunal 1. in Appellant has been incorrectly mentioned in the cause title as :

Accenture Services Private Limited [as a successor to Accenture Services Private Limited („ASPL‟) which has merged into ASOL with an effective date of 01 December 2016] 1.1. The name of the Appellant as mentioned in the cause title shall be replaced by and read as the following name stated in Form 36B, dated 29/09/2017:

Accenture Solutions Private Limited (ASOL) [as a successor to Accenture Services Private Limited („ASPL‟) which has merged into ASOL with an effective date of 01 December 2016]

Corrigendum: (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Further, after quoting the decision of the Tribunal in the case of 2. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT: [ITA No. 581/Bang/2016] & C.O. 21/Bang/2017, dated 12/09/2018, in paragraph 5.12 of the decision, in paragraph 5.13 the name of comparable has been incorrectly mentioned as „Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd.‟ instead of „I-Gate Global Solutions Limited‟. Therefore, „Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd.‟ stated in paragraph 5.13 shall stand replaced by and be read as ‟I-Gate Global Solutions Limited.‟ Accordingly, paragraph 5.13 shall read as under:

5.13 In the above appeal, the Tribunal had upheld the decision of the DRP to exclude I-Gate Global Solutions Limited as a comparable for benchmarking ITeS Segment as segmental data for IT Services and ITeS Services was not available in the annual financial statements of I-Gate Global Solutions Limited. Thus, facts/contentions being identical, respectfully following the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we hold that for the Assessment Year 2011-12, I-Gate Global Solutions Limited cannot be accepted as comparable in the present case on account of non-availability of segmental data. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer/TPO are directed to exclude the I-Gate Global Solutions Limited from the final set of comparables and re-compute ALP as well as transfer pricing adjustment, if any, accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →