24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

21 ITR (Trib) 514Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#10334 most cited

What is 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Comparables with abnormally high profits or losses cannot be excluded when the Arithmetic Mean Method is applied for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). Additionally, a company with related party transactions (RPT) exceeding 15% of turnover should be excluded as a comparable.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Also referred to as

24/7 Customer.Com · transfer pricing · comparable uncontrolled transaction · arm's length price · arithmetic mean method · abnormal profits · abnormal losses · related party transactions · RPT exclusion · ALP determination

Judgments citing 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1567/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that when in a particular assessment year, if Arithmetic Mean Method has been applied, comparables with abnormal profits/losses cannot be excluded. This is for the reason that up until April 1, 2014, Indian transfer pricing regulations followed the Arithmetic Mean Method which took into account all comparables irrespec…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 52/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that when in a particular assessment year, if Arithmetic Mean Method has been applied, comparables with abnormal profits/losses cannot be excluded. This is for the reason that up until April 1, 2014, Indian transfer pricing regulations followed the Arithmetic Mean Method which took into account all comparables irrespec…

Sansung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 8, New Delhi

ITA 2511/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that when in a particular assessment year, if Arithmetic Mean Method has been applied, comparables with abnormal profits/losses cannot be excluded. This is for the reason that up until April 1, 2014, Indian transfer pricing regulations followed the Arithmetic Mean Method which took into account all comparables irrespec…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 868/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that when in a particular assessment year, if Arithmetic Mean Method has been applied, comparables with abnormal profits/losses cannot be excluded. This is for the reason that up until April 1, 2014, Indian transfer pricing regulations followed the Arithmetic Mean Method which took into account all comparables irrespec…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6741/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that when in a particular assessment year, if Arithmetic Mean Method has been applied, comparables with abnormal profits/losses cannot be excluded. This is for the reason that up until April 1, 2014, Indian transfer pricing regulations followed the Arithmetic Mean Method which took into account all comparables irrespec…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Samsung India Electronics Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 3410/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that when in a particular assessment year, if Arithmetic Mean Method has been applied, comparables with abnormal profits/losses cannot be excluded. This is for the reason that up until April 1, 2014, Indian transfer pricing regulations followed the Arithmetic Mean Method which took into account all comparables irrespec…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 3248/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that when in a particular assessment year, if Arithmetic Mean Method has been applied, comparables with abnormal profits/losses cannot be excluded. This is for the reason that up until April 1, 2014, Indian transfer pricing regulations followed the Arithmetic Mean Method which took into account all comparables irrespec…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5315/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that when in a particular assessment year, if Arithmetic Mean Method has been applied, comparables with abnormal profits/losses cannot be excluded. This is for the reason that up until April 1, 2014, Indian transfer pricing regulations followed the Arithmetic Mean Method which took into account all comparables irrespec…

Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 442/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Sudhakar Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 92C

…ective parties to the transactions operate are different and therefore the filter of 25% export earnings to total sales is held to be valid by the decisions of Customer.Com Pvt Ltd v DCIT [2012] 28 taxmann.com 258 (Bang.) : [2013] 140 ITD 344 (Bang.) : [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bang.), ITO V CRM Services India (P) Ltd., [2011] 48 SOT 41 (Del (URO), M/s. Stream International Services Pvt. Ltd v ADIT [2013] 31 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.). It is not the case of assessee company that it passes through the export filter of 25% to total revenue. Therefore IT(TP)A No.442/Bang/2011& IT(TP)A No.444&445/Bang/2011 Page 19 of…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Fmc India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed and the assessee's C

ITA 431/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2015AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…comparables. 5.2.7 It is seen from the impugned order that the learned CIT(A) has rejected M/s. Agile Electric Technologies Ltd. as a comparable for having RPT. A co-ordinate bench in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.227/Bang/2010 reported in 21 ITR (Trib) 514 has held C.O. No.30/Bang/2015 9 that a company having RPT in excess of 15% of turnover should be excluded from being a comparable. In the case on hand from the details on record, it is reported that this company has RPT of about 62.38% on turnover and therefore following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of 24/7 Customer.Co…

24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (21 ITR (Trib) 514) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax