Birlasoft (India) Ltd. v. DClT

44 SOT 664Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#5061 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 366,339 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

Landis + Gyr Limited, South 24 Parganas vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 37/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 43B

…determined based on the relevant segmented profitability. We draw support from the following decisions in support of this proposition:- Benetton India P Ltd vs ITO reported in (2012) 134 ITD 229 (Delhi Trib.) Birlasoft (India) Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2011) 44 SOT 664 (Delhi Trib.) General Motors India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2013) 146 ITD 559 (Ahd Trib.) 31 Landis + Gyr Limited, AY 2007-08 Moreover, we find that the ld TPO had accepted the certified segmental profitability as he has considered ‘Manufacturing Segment’ profitability from the same. However, he did not consider the sub-segment profitability…

M/S Landis+Gyr Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1623/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 43B

…determined based on the relevant segmented profitability. We draw support from the following decisions in support of this proposition:- Benetton India P Ltd vs ITO reported in (2012) 134 ITD 229 (Delhi Trib.) Birlasoft (India) Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2011) 44 SOT 664 (Delhi Trib.) General Motors India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2013) 146 ITD 559 (Ahd Trib.) 31 Landis + Gyr Limited, AY 2007-08 Moreover, we find that the ld TPO had accepted the certified segmental profitability as he has considered ‘Manufacturing Segment’ profitability from the same. However, he did not consider the sub-segment profitability…

Seven N Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6192/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, C.I.T, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234Section 271

…ition in law that internal comparables are preferred over external comparables.” 9. The reliances is placed on the following case : “ a) Tecnimont ICB (P) Ltd. V. ACIT, ITA No. 4608 & 5085/Mum/2010, ITAT Mumbai (Third Member) b) Birlasoft India Ltd. V. DCIT, 44 SOT 664, ITAT Delhi c) Sony Ericsson Mobile Coomunications India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT-III [(2015) 374 ITR 118] (Del HC) d) Diageo India Private Limited vs. DCIT Mumbai (ITA Nos. 7932/Mum/2011) e) Cable & Wireless (India) Ltd. Vs. ADIT Mumbai (ITA No. 822/Mum/2013) f) Genisys Integrating System (India) Private Limited vs. DCIT Bangalore (ITA No 908/Bang/2011)…