“working capital adjustment”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C508 judgments

The decision most relied on for working capital adjustment is Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (114 ITD 448), cited in 131 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on working capital adjustment

Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

114 ITD 448 · 2008 · ITAT

131

citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, functionally dissimilar entities that have significant business differences must be excluded from the list of comparables for benchmarking analysis. It also provides guidance on the non-allocation of advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses to other entities when incurred solely for the assessee's business.

Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

398 ITR 66 · 2017 · High Court

100

citing judgments

Not every item of receivables appearing in the accounts of an entity dealing with foreign associated enterprises automatically constitutes an international transaction under Section 92B. A separate adjustment for interest on outstanding receivables is not permissible if the working capital adjustment has already factored in their impact.

Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

109 ITD 101 · 2007 · ITAT

citing judgments

A working capital adjustment is mandated and a prerequisite for correctly determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) under Rule 10B(1)(e) and Rule 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This adjustment accounts for differences in working capital and outstanding receivables between the assessee and comparable companies.

Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

398 ITR 120 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that a detailed functional and working capital analysis, considering various factors, is essential before treating outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction for transfer pricing adjustments on notional interest. Simply making an adjustment based on receivables alone without such study distorts the transaction's character.

Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CIT

330 ITR 363 · 2011 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

For Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB, the book profit must reflect the true working results of the company. Capital receipts that are not income cannot be included in book profit, and adjustments based on notes on accounts can be made to arrive at the real profit.

Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT

101 Taxmann.com 313 · 2019 · ITAT

citing judgments

Working capital adjustments are permissible and crucial for comparability analysis when determining the arm's length price of international transactions, especially when an assessee's claim for such adjustment has been denied.

ITO v. E Value Serve.com

75 Taxmann.com 195 · 2016 · Reported

citing judgments

In transfer pricing analysis, demanding daily balances for working capital adjustments is impractical and improper; adjustments should be based on opening and closing working capital. Transfer pricing inherently involves estimation to ensure comparability.

Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT

53 SOT 159 · 2012 · ITAT

citing judgments

Companies with significantly different turnovers (e.g., one above Rs. 200 crores and another below) cannot be considered comparable in transfer pricing analysis. Turnover is a relevant factor in assessing comparability.

Judgments citing working capital adjustment

American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special, Range-1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1032/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2014-15 American Express (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-1, 7Th Floor, Mgf Metropolitan New Delhi Saket, Office Block District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan :Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs. American Express (India) Special Range-1, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan :Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Delhi), learned first appellate authority held that since the interest element pertaining to receivables gets subsumed in the working capital adjustment margin, no separate adjustment is required to be made. Accordingly, he deleted the addition. 12. Before us, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the interest on account of delayed receivables ... subsumed in the working capital adjustment, while considering the opening and closing balance of receivables. However, the interest on delayed receivables in respect of invoices raised and realized during the relevant financial year would not get subsumed in the working capital adjustment as they are not part

Everest Business Advisory India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1907/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2010-11 . Everest Business Advisory Vs. Acit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-11(1), A-1/B-27, Janak Puri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aabce2871R (Appellant) (Respondent)

there are basically two issues arising in the appeal, one relating to selection/rejection of certain comparables and the other is in relation to working capital adjustment. AY: 2010-11 3. At the outset, we propose to deal with the first issue relating to selection/rejection of certain comparables. However, before ... after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 35. One more issue raised by the assessee relates to non- allowance of working capital adjustment. 36. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that in assessment

Honda R & D (India) Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5767/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Honda R & D (India) Pvt. Ltd., Versus Dcit, Circle 12(1), Technical Centre, Plot No. 02, New Delhi. Sector-03, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabch3071N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Sh. Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

comparables. Besides main grounds, the assessee vide letter dated 24.02.2023 has also raised an additional ground relating to certain computational error while computing working capital adjusted margins of the comparable companies. Hereinafter, we will address the arguments made before us by learned counsel. 3. In so far as the issue ... only other issue, which remains to be decided is the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding certain computational error while computing the working capital adjustment. It is the contention of learned counsel that SBI PLR rate has been taken wrongly. 25. Having considered the submissions of the parties

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8389/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.8389/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2005-06) Dcit-2(3), Room No.555, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Magnet House, 2Nd Floor, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacz 0742 K ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit - Dr "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT - DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate

Section 10ASection 244ASection 92C

placed on record before the TPO with respect to exclusion of branch profits. He also objected to the claim of depreciation adjustment and working capital adjustment allowed by the CIT(A). He submitted that there is no basis for allowing said adjustments. 8 8. In respect of secondment of employees ... working 13 capital adjustment the ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that there are catena of decisions by different Benches of the Tribunal allowing working capital adjustment. 14. In respect of ground No.6 of appeal by the Revenue assailing the findings of CIT(A) on restricting the disallowance with respect

Teradata India Pvt Ltd, Grugram vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 2337/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

passed in case of Kusum Health Care Private Limited (ITA No. 765/2016) by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 5. That once working capital adjustment is granted no separate adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is maintainable. Part III-Corporate Tax Grounds 6. Denial of deduction under Section ... observation was also made by the ld DRP in page 109 in para 2 of its order. It is pertinent to note that working capital adjustment has been granted by the ld TPO on the outstanding receivables and outstanding payables while benchmarking the SWD and GCC segments of the assessee

ACIT-Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1430/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

Teradata India P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1248/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

Delphi Automotive Systems (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 1361/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaaptive Components India P. Ltd, Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Delphi Of Income-Tax, Automotive Systems P. Ltd), Circle-7(1), P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacd0226E

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(2)

Sonata Software 35.87% 29.92% 14. Tata Elxsi Ltd.(Segment) 20.29% 14.54% Average 31.03% 26.77% 8. The average margin after granting working capital adjustment of the aforesaid comparable companies was adopted at 26.77% and accordingly, the ld AO in the final assessment order proceeded to adopt the transfer pricing adjustment ... directions of the ld DRP had arrived at the final set of comparables in the manufacturing segment of the assessee and after granting working capital adjustment thereon as under:- SNo Name of the company Companies considered after DRP OP/OI (WC adjusted) 1 A N G Industries Ltd. 6.37% 2 Banco

Egis International S.A., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-Int. Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1663/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17 Egis International S.A. Vs. Acit T-305, Tf, Circle-1Nt. Tax 1(2)(2) Tirupati Plaza, New Delhi. Sector-11 (Mlu), Pocket 4, Plot No. 11 Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 075. Pan Aabcb7760L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

Section 92C(3)

year 9. The Ld AO/ Ld TPO/ Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not allowing a risk adjustment and working capital adjustment to the Appellant, thereby contravening the Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) 10. The Ld AO/Ld TPO/Ld CIT(A) erred on facts ... carry any interest cost on its funds 13. The Ld AO/ Ld TPO/Ld CIT(A) erred on the facts by not allowing working capital adjustment to the Appellant and which takes care impact of outstanding receivables/ payables 14. The Ld AO/ Ld TPO/ Ld CIT(A) erred on the facts

Phoenix Lamps Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 1152/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year 2012-13 Phoenix Lamps Ltd. Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Halonix Ltd.), Circle-2, 59-A, Nsez Phase Ii, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcp7718G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 & In Ita No.1152/Del/2017 For Ay 2012-13 Arise Out Of The Order Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Noida (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. Ita No.1152/Del/2017 2. Identical Issues Are Involved In Both These Appeals, Hence, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. Let Us Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 First.

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 92C

financing would become an international transaction in terms of Explanation (iii) to section 92B of the Act. It is not in dispute that working capital adjustment has been duly granted by the ld. TPO in respect of the export transactions carried out with the AE. Hence, it was argued that ... once the working capital adjustment is granted by the assessee which is worked out by taking into account the outstanding trade receivables and outstanding trade payables at the end of the year, there is no need for separate imputation of interest on outstanding receivables from the AE as the same

Phoenix Lamps Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 1702/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 92C

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1255/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/For Respondent: Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath

Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

software development services. Adjustment required to be made to arm's length margin 16. Erred in not allowing Appellant the benefit of working capital adjustment which is required to be undertaken to account for the difference in working capital levels between the comparable companies and the Appellant. 17. Erred

Rockwell Automation Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1638/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadrockwell Automation India Private Acit, Circle 19(1), Limited, Vs. Delhi. 131, Functional Industrial Area, Patparganj, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhaskar Goswami, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Appellant after rectifying the mistake apparent from record. 7. On facts and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in not allowing working capital adjustment and risk adjustment under Rule 10B(l)(e) of the Rules for determination of the ALP to account for differences in working capital employed ... taking cognizance of the order of the Tribunal in Appellant’s own case for AY 2014-15. 8.4 Not appreciating that the working capital adjustment subsumes the impact of any additional return on account receivables. 8.5 Arbitrarily applying a markup of 400 basis points on LIBOR for the purpose

Turner & Townsend Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8763/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Shri Mrinal Kumar, Sr. DFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar, Sr. D

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

related party transaction done in respect of the alleged comparables in order to justify that the said comparables need to be rejected. • Working capital adjustment of the alleged comparables taking into account the impact of outstanding receivables on the profitability. (ix) The Ld. TPO, without considering the factual and legal

Qad India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is disposed off as being general in nature, Ground No. 2 relating to selection of comparables is partly allowed in terms of paragraph 5 to 6

ITA 4098/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Ms. RiddhiFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Appellant that Softsol India Ltd. cannot be selected as a comparable on account of functional dissimilarly and lack of segmental data. Working Capital Adjustment 7. As regards contention of the Appellants for seeking working capital adjustment, we grant the Appellant an opportunity to establish 20 before the Assessing Officer that ... Appellant is entitled to working capital adjustment in respect of the comparables finally selected. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the claim for working capital adjustment, if any made by the Appellant before the Assessing Officer as per law. 8. Thus, in accordance with the above, the Assessing Officer

Fujitsu Consulting India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 931/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anshuman Patnaik, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

from an international transaction are closely linked to the main transaction and should be benchmarked, using a combined transaction approach and carrying out working capital adjustment; ii. By re-characterizing the nature of outstanding receivables as unsecured loan advanced to AEs; iii. Imputing interest on outstanding receivable ... enterprise application and computer programming services to its customers in India and outside India. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had submitted working capital adjusted margins of the comparable companies to account for impact of outstanding receivables and duly bench marked the receivables arising from the international transaction undertaken

Dassault Systems India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT, Special Range- 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 8469/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 92D

comparing the operating margins of comparable companies with the Appellant's operating margin, without providing any economic adjustments, viz. on account of working capital adjustment and on account of difference in risk profile of the Appellant, as required under Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules

Oxford University Press, Mumbai vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2327/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2327/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2018-19) Oxford University Press, 22 Workspace, 2Nd Floor, 1/22 Ansari Road, New Delhi, Delhi – 110 002 Pan: Aaaco-3278-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle -3(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point,Mumbai 400 007. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rishabh Malhotra ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MalhotraFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 40

facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Transfer' Pricing Officer ought to have granted to the appellant the benefit of working capital adjustment on account of the differences in the working capital position of the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies.” 3. Shri Rishabh Malhotra appearing ... outset that in respect of ground No.1 of appeal, he is confining his submissions to the additional ground raised i.e. seeking working capital adjustment and to consider weighted average of current year and preceding two years. He pointed that the data for current year was not available during the assessment

Orange Business Services India Solutions Private Limited (Formerly Known As Equant Solutions India Private Limited), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2026/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Malhotra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 92B

erred by charging interest on outstanding receivables, despite the fact that the Appellant had carried out working capital adjustment. The impact of outstanding receivables was subsumed in it and hence, no further adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables was warranted; 15. On the facts and circumstances ... disturbance has been made in so far as OP margin of the assessee is concerned the OPN has been arrived after making working capital adjustment. Operating mark up of the appellant company is 16.19% whereas the comparables working capital adjustment mark up comes to 15.72%. This shows that the profit

Tcs E- Serve Ltd ( Earlier Known As E- Serve International Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 9(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ITA number 7448/M/2010 for assessment year 2005 – 06 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2540/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No.151/Mm/2012 (Arising In Ita No. 2380/Mum/2011 For A.Y. 2005-06) Tata Consultancy Services The Additional Commissioner Limited Of Income-Tax (Upon Merger Of Tcs E-Serve 9(1) Limited With Tata Consultancy Aaykar Bhavan, Services Limited) Vs. 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, M. Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc4480F

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 10Section 14Section 143

circular number 5 of 2010. The learned CIT – A dealt with the computation of margin of different comparables. He also permitted the working capital adjustment. He also dealt with the several comparables. Accordingly, he found that the original Arithmetic mean of the comparable companies comes to 19.43% after working capital ... assessee, accepted by the TPO and final list accepted by the learned CIT (A). There is no dispute that the post working capital adjusted margin of the comparable companies is arrived at 19.43%. According to that the ITeS revenue should be ₹ 4,857,291,773/–, after considering variation