Birlasoft (India) Ltd. v. DClT

44 SOT 664Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#5070 most cited

What is Birlasoft (India) Ltd. v. DClT authority for?

Segmental accounts, even if unaudited, can be considered for determining the arm's length price under the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) if income and expenses are properly allocated. Expenditure made for business purposes does not need to be profitable to be deductible.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Birlasoft India Ltd v DCIT · 44 SOT 664 · TNMM · unaudited segmental accounts · arm's length price · section 92c · business expenditure · deductibility

Issues it is cited on

tnmmsection 92csection 92section 144cinternational transactiontransfercompanyindiabusinesspersoninterest

Judgments citing Birlasoft (India) Ltd. v. DClT

SWATCH GROUP (INDIA) RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4281/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royswatch Group (India) Retail Private Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(2), 4Th Floor, Rectangle 1, Plot No.D4, Delhi. Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. (Pan : Aavcs7960H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.07.2024 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…mited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (I.T.A. No. 2558/Kol/2017)(refer page 13-34 of the Case Law Compilation)  Asst.CIT vs Netguru Ltd. (ITA No. 1799/Kol/2018)(refer page 35- 52 of the Case Law Compilation)  Birla Soft (India) Limited Vs. DCIT [(2011) 44 SOT 664 (Delhi)](refer page 53-69 of the Case Law Compilation)  Aramex India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 6749/Mum/2017)(refer page 70-89 of the Case Law Compilation)  Brigade Global Services (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (143 ITD 59) (Hyd)(refer page 90-110 of the Case Law Compilation)  DCIT v. M/s. Parled Technologies Ltd. (formerly Four Soft Ltd.), 2017 (11) TMI 183…

GRUNER INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4062/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4062/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 15 Dsidc, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-10(2), Phase-Ii, Scheme-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg2938H Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated Xx.02.2019 Passed By The Ao U/S 254/143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…Diamonds (2011) 9 taxmann.com 37/43 SOT 523 (Mum.) wherein it had held that under TNMM ALP has to be determined on the profit realized from an International transaction and not at entity level: (iii) Birla Soft (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2011)9 taxmann.com 263/44 SOT 664 (Delhi) the ITAT wherein it had been held that segmental account, even if unaudited, can be considered if the income or the expenses have been properly allocated; (iv) Chinon Behring Vaccines (P) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 10 taxmann.com 125 (Mum) wherein it had been held that TNMM requires comparison of net margin realized from international transa…

ACIT,CIRCLE-19(1), NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LIMITED, NEW DELHI

ITA 2185/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Ongc Videsh Limited Circle-19(1), Tower-B5, Nelson Mandela New Delhi Marg, Vasant Kinj, New Delhi Pan : Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 42

…derwater Services Co.(P) Ltd vs DCIT (1991) 37 ITD 447, Mumbai IT AT held that simply because the assessee had incurred expenditure and the income resulted in the subsequent years, the claim of expenses cannot be disallowed. In Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs DClT [44 SOT 664 (Del)] Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that settled proposition that when once an outlay is made for the purpose of the business, it need not turn out to be profitable. It is a mistake to suppose that any deductible expenditure must not only be incurred for the purpose of business or trade but must also be profitably laid out. Deductible expenditure incur…

ADDL. CIT,SPL RNAGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2379/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…derwater Services Co.(P) Ltd vs DCIT (1991) 37 ITD 447, Mumbai IT AT held that simply because the assessee had incurred expenditure and the income resulted in the subsequent years, the claim of expenses cannot be disallowed. In Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs DClT [44 SOT 664 (Del)] Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that settled proposition that when once an outlay is made for the purpose of the business, it need not turn out to be profitable. It is a mistake to suppose that any deductible expenditure must not only be incurred for the purpose of business or trade but must also be profitably laid out. Deductible expenditure incur…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 158/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…derwater Services Co.(P) Ltd vs DCIT (1991) 37 ITD 447, Mumbai IT AT held that simply because the assessee had incurred expenditure and the income resulted in the subsequent years, the claim of expenses cannot be disallowed. In Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs DClT [44 SOT 664 (Del)] Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that settled proposition that when once an outlay is made for the purpose of the business, it need not turn out to be profitable. It is a mistake to suppose that any deductible expenditure must not only be incurred for the purpose of business or trade but must also be profitably laid out. Deductible expenditure incur…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7435/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…derwater Services Co.(P) Ltd vs DCIT (1991) 37 ITD 447, Mumbai IT AT held that simply because the assessee had incurred expenditure and the income resulted in the subsequent years, the claim of expenses cannot be disallowed. In Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs DClT [44 SOT 664 (Del)] Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that settled proposition that when once an outlay is made for the purpose of the business, it need not turn out to be profitable. It is a mistake to suppose that any deductible expenditure must not only be incurred for the purpose of business or trade but must also be profitably laid out. Deductible expenditure incur…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6281/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…derwater Services Co.(P) Ltd vs DCIT (1991) 37 ITD 447, Mumbai IT AT held that simply because the assessee had incurred expenditure and the income resulted in the subsequent years, the claim of expenses cannot be disallowed. In Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs DClT [44 SOT 664 (Del)] Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that settled proposition that when once an outlay is made for the purpose of the business, it need not turn out to be profitable. It is a mistake to suppose that any deductible expenditure must not only be incurred for the purpose of business or trade but must also be profitably laid out. Deductible expenditure incur…

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ONGC VIDESH LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2119/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…derwater Services Co.(P) Ltd vs DCIT (1991) 37 ITD 447, Mumbai IT AT held that simply because the assessee had incurred expenditure and the income resulted in the subsequent years, the claim of expenses cannot be disallowed. In Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs DClT [44 SOT 664 (Del)] Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that settled proposition that when once an outlay is made for the purpose of the business, it need not turn out to be profitable. It is a mistake to suppose that any deductible expenditure must not only be incurred for the purpose of business or trade but must also be profitably laid out. Deductible expenditure incur…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3816/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2009-10
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…derwater Services Co.(P) Ltd vs DCIT (1991) 37 ITD 447, Mumbai IT AT held that simply because the assessee had incurred expenditure and the income resulted in the subsequent years, the claim of expenses cannot be disallowed. In Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs DClT [44 SOT 664 (Del)] Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that settled proposition that when once an outlay is made for the purpose of the business, it need not turn out to be profitable. It is a mistake to suppose that any deductible expenditure must not only be incurred for the purpose of business or trade but must also be profitably laid out. Deductible expenditure incur…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3210/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…derwater Services Co.(P) Ltd vs DCIT (1991) 37 ITD 447, Mumbai IT AT held that simply because the assessee had incurred expenditure and the income resulted in the subsequent years, the claim of expenses cannot be disallowed. In Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs DClT [44 SOT 664 (Del)] Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that settled proposition that when once an outlay is made for the purpose of the business, it need not turn out to be profitable. It is a mistake to suppose that any deductible expenditure must not only be incurred for the purpose of business or trade but must also be profitably laid out. Deductible expenditure incur…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3209/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2007-08
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…derwater Services Co.(P) Ltd vs DCIT (1991) 37 ITD 447, Mumbai IT AT held that simply because the assessee had incurred expenditure and the income resulted in the subsequent years, the claim of expenses cannot be disallowed. In Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs DClT [44 SOT 664 (Del)] Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that settled proposition that when once an outlay is made for the purpose of the business, it need not turn out to be profitable. It is a mistake to suppose that any deductible expenditure must not only be incurred for the purpose of business or trade but must also be profitably laid out. Deductible expenditure incur…

SMA NUTRITION INDIA PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 526/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2016-17] SMA Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant 100/101 World Trade Centre, Commissioner of Income- Barakhamba Lane, Vs tax/Income Tax Officer, National e- New Delhi-110001 Assessment Centre, Delhi PAN-AAECC8474D Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, CA Revenue by Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 02.08.2022 ORDER PER SH…

BERTELSMANN MARKETING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6577/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Majorel India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (“Company”) (Earlier Known Circle 4(2) As Bertelsmann Marketing New Delhi Services India Pvt. Ltd.)215, Second Floor, Suneja Tower- Ii, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi Aabcb8378G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv & Sh. Yishu Goel, Adv Respondent By Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 12.11.2021

Section 144CSection 271Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…t Transfer BV Vs. DCIT (2014) 64 SOT 47 (Delhi Tri.)  Destination of the World Subcontinent (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2011) 47 SOT 1 (Delhi Tri.)  CSR Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2018) 90 Taxman.com 85 (Delhi Tri.)  Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2011) 44 SOT 664 (Delhi Tri.)  S.B.& T Designs Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017) 82 Taxman.com 385 (Mumbai Tri.) 9. The Ld. DR submitted that the TPO in the show cause notice, proposed to reject internal TNMM applied by the assessee for benchmarking provision of ITeS. The TPO proceeded to apply external TNMM to benchmark the said international transactionThe DRP while dealin…

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

ITA 6665/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupham Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 254Section 92C

…Rs.125,71,932/- and Rs.22,85,957/-. 16 69. Similar view as to allowing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act on excess provision returned back amounting to Rs.7,42,769/- has been expressed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Birlasoft (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 44 SOT 664 (Delhi). Following the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that notice pay recoveries from the employees is also part of the business profit of the taxpayer on which the taxpayer is also eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Consequently, grounds no.11 & 11.1 are also determined in favour o…

UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…sue and at para 68, following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 based on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the earned on fixed deposits. Similarly, following the decision in the case of Birla Soft (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 44 SOT 664 (Del), the Tribunal has allowed the deduction u/s 10A of the Act on excess provision written back. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Riviera Home Furnishing vs. Addl. CIT (2017) 9 ITR-OL 401 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when the fixed deposits were under t…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S UNITED HEALTH GROUP INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…sue and at para 68, following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 based on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the earned on fixed deposits. Similarly, following the decision in the case of Birla Soft (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 44 SOT 664 (Del), the Tribunal has allowed the deduction u/s 10A of the Act on excess provision written back. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Riviera Home Furnishing vs. Addl. CIT (2017) 9 ITR-OL 401 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when the fixed deposits were under t…

MOTT MACDONALD CONSULTANTS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST COT COR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7701/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhmott. Macdonald Consultants Acit Circle-2(2) (India) Pvt. Ltd. 44, Khanna Mumbai. Constructions House, Dr. R.G. Thandani Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aabcm0834G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Miss. Aarti Vissanji (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande & Shri Manjunath Karkihalli( Sr.Dr’S) Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2019

For Appellant: Miss. Aarti Vissanji (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande and Shri Manjunath Karkihalli( Sr.DR’s)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 92C

…ess Revenue can demonstrate fallacies in its application; traditional methods to be preferred over TNMM. In support of her submissions the ld. AR for the assessee relied on the decisions in ACIT v Sonata Software (55 SOT 533), Birla soft India Ltd. v DCIT (44 SOT 664 (Del.) and ACIT Vs MMS India (P.) Ltd. 123 TTJ 657 (Pune) 9. In alternate submission the ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee selected 19 comparable companies from Prowess database and the average margin of comparable were 10.48%. The TPO accepted 11 comparables out of 19 comparable. The ld. TPO applied RPT filter of 25%. If same…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TRACTABEL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 456/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, Circle-16(1), New Delhi M/S. Tractebel Engineering Pvt. Ltd., 10-A, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi Pan : Aabct1757B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. Tractebel Engineering Pvt. Dcit, Circle-16(1), New Delhi Ltd., 10-A, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi Pan : Aabct1757B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C

…he following case laws: • Honeywell Electric Devices And Systems India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income TaxlTA No. 2152/Mds/2011 (for segmental information) • Cable & Wireless (India) Ltd. [ITA No.822/Mum/2013] • Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2011, 44 SOT 664 (Delhi)] • Destination of the World (Subcontinent) P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2011, 47 SOT 1, Delhi • DCIT vs. T, Two International P. Ltd. [ITA No.7331/Mum/2011] In view of this, DRP is of the view that internal TNMM is available in this case and therefore there is no need to go for external comparables and external TNMM. Since the margin earned in the AE…

M/S. TRACTEBEL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1078/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, Circle-16(1), New Delhi M/S. Tractebel Engineering Pvt. Ltd., 10-A, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi Pan : Aabct1757B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. Tractebel Engineering Pvt. Dcit, Circle-16(1), New Delhi Ltd., 10-A, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi Pan : Aabct1757B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C

…he following case laws: • Honeywell Electric Devices And Systems India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income TaxlTA No. 2152/Mds/2011 (for segmental information) • Cable & Wireless (India) Ltd. [ITA No.822/Mum/2013] • Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2011, 44 SOT 664 (Delhi)] • Destination of the World (Subcontinent) P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2011, 47 SOT 1, Delhi • DCIT vs. T, Two International P. Ltd. [ITA No.7331/Mum/2011] In view of this, DRP is of the view that internal TNMM is available in this case and therefore there is no need to go for external comparables and external TNMM. Since the margin earned in the AE…

SURYA BUILDHOME PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4296/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234BSection 246ASection 28

…ts to their profit and loss account and as such, the claim of revenue expenses cannot be allowed if the corresponding receipts are not recognized in the accounts of the same year. The decision in the case of Birlasoft (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT of ITAT New Delhi , 44 SOT 664, relied by the assessee does not render any help to the assessee as in that case the question of foreign traveling expenses were considered to have been incurred for the purpose of business and in that circumstances, the Tribunal observed that such expenditure do not require presence of receipts. In the instant case, the brokerage expenses have di…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

Birlasoft (India) Ltd. v. DClT (44 SOT 664) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax