TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged that appropriate adjustments for specific non-operating costs should be allowed while computing the operating costs and Arm's Length Price (ALP). However, due to lack of complete details, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee contended that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) failed to allow appropriate adjustments for specific non-operating costs incurred. The Revenue argued that complete details of these costs were not furnished, hindering proper adjustment.
What were the issues?
Whether the TPO erred in not allowing appropriate adjustments for specific non-operating costs incurred by the assessee while determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Brigade Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO11 citing33 Taxmann.com 618 · 2013 · ITAT
- Transwitch India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT8 citing21 Taxmann.com 257 · 2012 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) mainly assailing the TP adjustments made by the CIT(A). This appeal was disposed off by the tribunal vide its order dated 16.03.2016. Thereafter the assessee has moved a miscellaneous application with the submission that ground No. 5(b) remains to be adjudicated. Being convinced with the contentions of the assessee, the IT(TP)A No.22/Bang/2012 Page 2 of 4 tribunal vide its order dated 17.06.2016 directed the registry to list the appeal for hearing on a limited ground i.e., 5(b), which reads as under:
“The AO/TPO erred in law and facts in not allowing appropriate adjustment for the specific non-operating costs incurred by the Appellant during FY 2004-05.”
Accordingly, the appeal came up for hearing and the arguments advanced by the parties were heard on this ground. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the TPO has not given appropriate adjustments for the specific non-operating costs incurred by the assessee. In support of his contention, that while working ALP, appropriate adjustment on non- operating costs has to be allowed, he placed the reliance upon the following judgments:
ii. Market Tools Research (P.) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 195 (Hyderabad – Trib.) iii. Transwitch India Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT (2012) 21 taxmann.com 257 (Del.) iv. Brigade Global Services (P.) Ltd Vs. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com 618 (Hyderabad – Trib.)
Learned counsel for the assessee has also placed reliance upon the telecalling agreement appearing at page No. 192 of the compilation and order of the TPO relating to computation of profit level indicator/operating profit/operating cost at page Nos. 99 and 100 of the order.
The learned DR on the other hand has contended that except the oral submissions, the assessee has not furnished the details relating to non-operating
IT(TP)A No.22/Bang/2012 Page 3 of 4 cost incurred by the assessee during the impugned financial year and for want of complete details, the appropriate adjustment was not possible.
Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities in the light of the rival submissions, we find that the appropriate adjustment for the specific non- operating cost should be allowed to the assessee while computing the operating costs and the ALP, but for verification, complete details are required to be produced before the competent authorities.
In the instant case, though the assessee has raised the submissions before the TPO and the TPO had discussed the same while computing the ALP and the PLI but before the CIT(A), neither the specific grounds in this regard was raised nor the complete details for which the assessee wants an appropriate adjustment were placed. Similar is the position before us and in the absence of complete details of non-operating costs it cannot be specifically held whether appropriate adjustment is possible or not. However, it has been repeatedly held that after making necessary verification, appropriate adjustment for the non-operating cost should be allowed while computing the ALP. Therefore, we are of the view that let this matter be examined by the CIT(A) in the light of the details of non operating costs. We accordingly restore the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issue.
IT(TP)A No.22/Bang/2012 Page 4 of 4
In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of November, 2016.
More judgments on Section 92C
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 3453/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6805/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Tbea Green Energy (India) Private Limited… vs ACIT, Central Circle 1, Vadodara, GujaratITA 592/AHD/2026[2022-2023]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
- Styrenix Performance Materials Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1066/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Styrenix Performance Materials Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1066/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026